Ongoing CBA discussions

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Was hooskins talking about the fans? It may be a luxury to them, but this isn't about them

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?

I believe only on whether they can be locked out

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo
(http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Adrian-Peterson-gives-readers-a-8220-Double-Ta?urn=nfl-wp206)
SC: We're talking about 15 minutes after the NFLPA sent in the paperwork to decertify, so the lockout's on everybody's minds. I've talked to a lot of players about this recently, and I always ask the same question — what is the message you want to get out to the people who love the game and are tired of hearing all the labor talk?

AP: We're business-minded, also. It's not just fun and games. A lot of football players, whether it's Sunday or Monday night — we're out there on the field, competing, hitting each other. But people don't see everything else behind it. It's a job for us, too — every day of the week. We're in different states, sometimes thousands of miles away from our families and kids, and a lot of people don't look at it like that. All some people see is, 'Oh, we're not going to be around football.' But how the players look at it … the players are getting robbed. They are. The owners are making so much money off of us to begin with. I don't know that I want to quote myself on that…

SC: It's nothing that I haven't heard from other players, believe me.

AP: It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.' There are so many different perspectives from different players, and obviously we're not all on the same page — I don't know. I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done.

But this crazy idea about an 18-game season … I'm sure they want more entertainment and more revenue, but we're not going to see a pinch of that (the increased revenue), and it's just the business we're in.

SC: It seems to most of the players that if the owners had nothing to hide financially, and if the current business model was as unsustainable as they claim, they'd have no trouble opening the books and showing audited profit and loss per team. Is that your impression?

AP: Exactly! It's like … 'Well, show us.' We want more information, and they want to bull****, going around, saying this and that, just open it up and give us the information we want. If they have nothing to hide, just give us the information. Why not? Obviously, there's a lot to hide -- these guys are professionals, and they're maximizing what they do. But they know that if all this information comes out, the information the players want, it'll be right out there for everyone to see. It's a ripoff — not just for the players, but for the people who work at the concession stands and at the stadiums. The people working at the facilities, you know?

SC: Do you feel that you're represented well by DeMaurice Smith and George Atallah and what now used to be the Players' Union?

AP: Yeah, I think so — they're doing a good job. And with the veteran guys on board, and the player reps, they give us a lot of confidence.

The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

Owners

*Players. The owners are making a lot of money as they should be. The players are also...enough to be financially secure for the rest of their lives after a relatively short career that also opens a lot of doors for them after their playing days are over. I don't see many guys turning down a chance to play in the NFL. Don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg. It's a pretty good gig, if they don't think so....find another line of work and see how "fair" you think that is.

Wow ... Adrian Peterson (vikings) from an interview with Yahoo
(http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Adrian-Peterson-gives-readers-a-8220-Double-Ta?urn=nfl-wp206)


The two bolded statements make it to where I will never see the players side (and I have heard similar statements from multiple players - Winston Justice saying that they are not better off than 5 years ago, Drew Brees, etc)

The part about modern-day slavery is ridiculous, I agree. Players don't have to play. And, if slaves get paid $5 mil. a year, sign me up for slavery!

I just have a problem with the owners saying yeah, we're gonna need to take a billion back from you. Why? Just trust us.

That shit doesn't fly. I've got no problem with them saying they need that $$ back, just prove it. Guaranteed that more than few owners are hiding some shady shit on their books. And then you have owners in Buffalo and Cincy that won't sell naming rights to their stadiums and are passing up on a big revenue stream.

I think it's interesting that the poll has 10 blaming players and 10 blaming owners. and 16 blaming both. I chose the players but easily could have gone with both, so I wonder - for the people who chose both, if you were to put an asterisk beside your vote and say "Both are idiots, but the _____ are slightly bigger idiots" who would you fill in the blank with?

I would say players, but only because they didn't take the deal the owners proposed & opted to decertify, which may hurt them in the long run. Time will tell of course. i.e. at this point in time, I see the players taking a bigger risk here and I'm not convinced that its worth if for them. If they get less than what the owners last proposed, they will indeed wear the title of "slightly bigger idiots." (in terms of sheer mass they are more than 'slightly bigger' though)

Overall, though, the owners must accept blame for agreeing to that deal in 06 knowing that it wasn't acceptable to them long-term. That IMO has created this mess, which could've taken place in 06 rather than now. So to answer the question, I'll say players, but that in no way should mean I'm blaming the players moreso than the owners, that's why I voted 'both.'

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

How so?