Skip to content

Union wants a new labor deal in November

Earlier this week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that he’d like to get a labor deal done before March.  NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith said on Thursday would like to get a deal done far sooner than that.

“The players of the National Football League would love to have a deal
done in November,” Smith said Thursday, per Steve Wyche of NFL.com.  “The players will want a deal done before March.”

Smith then echoed a point made recently by former NFL linebacker Cornelius Bennett in response to the news that the league will continue to make benefits to retired players in the event of a lockout.

“Players and their families’ health care, as we know it, will end in
March with a lockout,” Smith said.  “The league has not told us that they
will guarantee player and family health care in the event of a
lockout.”

And, as we said in response to Bennett’s remarks, the league won’t make that guarantee.  It’s called leverage — and Smith knows it.

Though we’d love to see a deal get done in November or sooner, the reality remains that, until the clock is approaching midnight, neither side will approach its bottom-line position.  When Goodell told ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike in the Morning, “We think that opportunity [to negotiate a new deal] is now between here and the March period,” Goodell essentially was saying that, from the league’s perspective, the clock strikes 12 on March 1.

The real question is whether a deal will be reached by then and, if not, what will happen next.

Permalink 56 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
56 Responses to “Union wants a new labor deal in November”
  1. dldove77 says: Sep 10, 2010 8:09 AM

    “The players of the National Football League would love to have a deal done in November,” Smith said Thursday, per Steve Wyche of NFL.com. “The players will want a deal done before March.”
    Well, which is it? November or March? Or is that a typo?

  2. Chapnasty. says: Sep 10, 2010 8:11 AM

    Hey Union, go to hell

  3. Jag4Life says: Sep 10, 2010 8:32 AM

    Billionares vs. Millionares. Who cares. Sit down like grown adults and come to a deal. I don’t give a sh*t. Just come next September 2011 I WANT my football.

  4. mp21ways says: Sep 10, 2010 8:42 AM

    Seems to me the Union would have maximum leverage by threatening to walk out before the playoffs. The players will have already earned their annual salaries, and it would give the players association a better negotiating position than being locked out in March.
    Also, it may be a significant motivator to Jerry Jones, one of the more influential owners, to get a deal done and not lose his beloved Superbowl at his new stadium.

  5. Whodey08 says: Sep 10, 2010 8:46 AM

    Note to Union:
    Most of your members had not been born during the last walkout in ’82.
    The sun still rose in the east and people found something to do on Sundays in the fall.
    We have lived w/o NFL ball before and we can again.

  6. Matt S. says: Sep 10, 2010 8:53 AM

    Unions, ruining families and jobs since…..well, forever.

  7. AttackRaven says: Sep 10, 2010 9:01 AM

    DeMaurice is DE Stupid and will get kicked in De Ass by the owners.

  8. 3octaveFart says: Sep 10, 2010 9:02 AM

    The owners, led by Jerry Jones, will never allow it.
    They want a lockout, and then they’ll blame the players.
    Look it up. Union Busting Tactics 101.

  9. shanahanfan says: Sep 10, 2010 9:05 AM

    PLEASE DAN SNYDER Jerry Jones and Denver Broncos owner pat bowlen US fans want a deal and football that’s all we are asking we want FOOTBALL!

  10. Pack_Attack says: Sep 10, 2010 9:09 AM

    These guys need to suck it like the rest of America. The heady go go days of the 90s and early 2000’s are over and they aint comin’ back. Without a rookie cap, I say no deal. Let them walk. That finger bullsh*t can stop too.

  11. BigBear123 says: Sep 10, 2010 9:21 AM

    Good morning Mike!
    I concur.

  12. EverybodyGotAIDS says: Sep 10, 2010 9:22 AM

    Pack_Attack says:
    September 10, 2010 9:09 AM
    These guys need to suck it like the rest of America.
    ________________
    WTF? Dude, I don’t know where you live, but that’s not the America I know. I have not, nor do I ever plan to, suck it.

  13. A Football Fanatic says: Sep 10, 2010 9:22 AM

    Thank God I will still be able to watch NCAA football starting next year because a deal is not going to be done in Nov. March, or any time near that.

  14. tom coughlin's coat holder says: Sep 10, 2010 9:29 AM

    @pack attack…nothing’s coming back in america..ever again.very sad.

  15. thats_what_she_said says: Sep 10, 2010 9:29 AM

    Matt S. says:
    September 10, 2010 8:53 AM
    Unions, ruining families and jobs since…..well, forever.
    ——————————————————–
    HAHAHAHA!
    as for the deal – stfu, and get ‘er done!

  16. Bay Area 415 says: Sep 10, 2010 9:35 AM

    Dubs and spinner rim prices are sure to skyrocket in the event of a lockout said a source close to the negotiations.
    Gotta feed the family dog!

  17. Iceberg34 says: Sep 10, 2010 9:37 AM

    This is a smart move by the players. Take the initiative and strike before you can get locked out, at a time when it is more advantageous to you. There will be more pressure on the owners (and Jerry Jones in particular) if you threaten to cancel the playoffs.

  18. Patrian says: Sep 10, 2010 9:39 AM

    WTF? Dude, I don’t know where you live, but that’s not the America I know. I have not, nor do I ever plan to, suck it.
    ——————————————–
    I believe “suck it” in this context is relative. In any event, the players will still be millionaires and by my definition and most of America, that’s not really sucking it.

  19. Simon12345 says: Sep 10, 2010 9:41 AM

    Everyone is playing hardball but the fans. If the fans truly punished the owners AND the players after a lockout by:
    a. Not buying tickets
    b. Not watching on TV
    c. Not buying merchandise
    Then maybe these guys would feel compelled to sit down and make the deal. The owners and the players are so busy jockying against one another that they don’t give TWO SH*TS about the people who really infuse the money in the game — US.
    What we need is a FAN LOCKOUT to keep those f-ers honest.

  20. Hap says: Sep 10, 2010 9:46 AM

    November is before March, so both are right with regard to that lil quirk.
    You do NOT want to screw with the fans on this, labor or management. Our discretionary money, which is evaporating as quickly as anyone’s, is what buys tickets/jersey’s, etc. If we decide to cut expenses, you’ll find out just who holds the leverage.
    Don’t try us. Get the deal done before it becomes much more of an issue than it is now.
    That showing before the game last night was cheap and transparent. Pull your crap somewhere else.

  21. Lucky5927 says: Sep 10, 2010 9:49 AM

    No way, the players playing on playoff team walk out before the playoffs begin. Super Bowls are too hard to come by for a team to pass that opportunity up.
    Also, why November? Why not now?? Wouldn’t it be in the league’s best interest to not delay this BS any longer than needed?

  22. EverybodyGotAIDS says: Sep 10, 2010 9:55 AM

    Patrian says:
    September 10, 2010 9:39 AM
    WTF? Dude, I don’t know where you live, but that’s not the America I know. I have not, nor do I ever plan to, suck it.
    ——————– ——————– —-
    I believe “suck it” in this context is relative. In any event, the players will still be millionaires and by my definition and most of America, that’s not really sucking it.
    ____________________
    No, I think he meant “Suck it up” but omitted a key word, hence my fun with it.

  23. big_buck_hunter says: Sep 10, 2010 9:58 AM

    EVERYONE WATCH ORGANIZED LABOR RUIN ANOTHER INDUSTY IN THE UNITED STATES.
    These people have to wake up and realize that organized labor worked until the world economies and transportation became enter-twined. UNIONS ARE TERRIBLE

  24. gdeli says: Sep 10, 2010 10:02 AM

    Get ‘R Done! We need the NFL next season and we have enough anxiety in MN with 15 games left(8 in the dome) before the lease is up and Ziggy Wilf said he isn’t renewing it. Vikes lost 7% of their value last year and they are the 30th most valued franchise. Ouch. With our Billion+ state deficit the Wilf’s may pack up for sunny California/elsewhere. This season and or next may be the real season of discontent for MN. The Saints knocked/creamed Warner out of the league, I hope Farve came back for the right reason and they got to Peyton. Let’s play some ball next season, Brees has a 2nd child on the way to pay for. Many others have mistresses. eh. I wonder if he has enough $ for the kid’s college fund. lol

  25. poman says: Sep 10, 2010 10:03 AM

    I would like to ask all of the people complaining about Billionare vs Millionare this question.
    If you work for a company that is making more money than ever before in most part due to you and your fellow employees hard work and the owner came to you and said we want to take a large portion of you check back how would you feel. nevermind the amount of money they make. Just look at it from that standpoint. You help the company you work for grow to be one of the most succesful companies on the planet and they cut your pay.

  26. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 10:04 AM

    Both sides are greedy. Bring on the “scabs”. Football is football. They will look horrible at first but they will get better and better. There are plenty (millions) of guys that would play for reasonable salaries. Those guys would eventually rise to stardom. I do not care whose name is on the back of the jersey; i will root for my team regardless.

  27. EverybodyGotAIDS says: Sep 10, 2010 10:16 AM

    Simon12345 says:
    September 10, 2010 9:41 AM
    Everyone is playing hardball but the fans. If the fans truly punished the owners AND the players after a lockout by:
    a. Not buying tickets
    b. Not watching on TV
    c. Not buying merchandise
    Then maybe these guys would feel compelled to sit down and make the deal. The owners and the players are so busy jockying against one another that they don’t give TWO SH*TS about the people who really infuse the money in the game — US.
    What we need is a FAN LOCKOUT to keep those f-ers honest.
    __________________
    They put out a product. You have the option to spend your money on it or not. If McDonalds doubled their prices, you would have the option to not go to McDonalds. Nobody is getting “screwed”. Football is a luxury, not a necessity or a right. I will say, however, that if you decide to spend your money elsewhere, there are plenty of people who will fill your spot.

  28. Pack_Attack says: Sep 10, 2010 10:16 AM

    I did mean suck it up. Cut back. Tighten out belts. The NBA lost $400 million last year. There needs to be a correction in the growth prospects of sports leagues. Look at the “minor leagues ” like arena football and the others. Theyre dieing or dead. Look at the cardinals and what they paid Leinart. Its criminal really. And they are presuming to hold the game and America hostage with some Barack Obama wannabe calling the shots? This country is at or near depression numbers and there is no real end in sight. Not to be a downer but this is terrible timing for a players union flexing their muscles.

  29. JoeSixPack says: Sep 10, 2010 10:17 AM

    Even the lowest paid NFL player can easily afford health insurance for himself or his family.
    If they’ve unwisely squandered the NFL minimum that’s their problem – not the NFL’s
    Retired NFL players with no income is a very different matter and the NFL has made clear they will continue to be covered (as they should) in the event of a lockout.
    It’s insulting to all of us to have the Union suggest they should be treated the same way.

  30. Marty says: Sep 10, 2010 10:17 AM

    Just in the interest of accuracy,
    The players want to keep playing. They like the current deal. It’s the owners who want a bigger share of the pie. If there’s a work stoppage, it will be a lockout, not a strike. The owners will be the ones who initiate the work stoppage, not the players.

  31. RC IV says: Sep 10, 2010 10:27 AM

    EverybodyGotAIDS says:
    September 10, 2010 9:55 AM
    Patrian says:
    September 10, 2010 9:39 AM
    WTF? Dude, I don’t know where you live, but that’s not the America I know. I have not, nor do I ever plan to, suck it.
    ——————– ——————– —-
    I believe “suck it” in this context is relative. In any event, the players will still be millionaires and by my definition and most of America, that’s not really sucking it.
    _________________ ___
    No, I think he meant “Suck it up” but omitted a key word, hence my fun with it.
    ==============================
    No , he really meant suck it.
    He’s a Packer fan.
    What do you expect from a fanbase of a team that has gay GM and a QB with a male roomie that “gets him” on a personal level.
    OH yes, he did mean suck it.

  32. 3octaveFart says: Sep 10, 2010 10:31 AM

    # big_buck_hunter says: September 10, 2010 9:58 AM
    “UNIONS ARE TERRIBLE”
    Do you have any benefits where you work?
    Health Care? Vacation Time? OT pay? a 401K?
    If so, thank a union…
    Wipe out unions and say goodbye to your middle class lifestyle.
    Geez, it’s tough educating the ignorant.

  33. KevinKolb4SB says: Sep 10, 2010 10:49 AM

    Man, I hate unions. The show of solidarity was unnecessary and made them look bad after the national anthem last night. In the end, the owners hold the leverage…the players should take the best deal they can get and not hold out too long.

  34. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 10:50 AM

    poman says:
    September 10, 2010 10:03 AM
    I would like to ask all of the people complaining about Billionare vs Millionare this question.
    If you work for a company that is making more money than ever before in most part due to you and your fellow employees hard work and the owner came to you and said we want to take a large portion of you check back how would you feel. nevermind the amount of money they make. Just look at it from that standpoint. You help the company you work for grow to be one of the most succesful companies on the planet and they cut your pay.
    ————————————————-
    That is not the issue. The players make a HUGE amount of money…even with this “pay cut”. It is similar to the people that drive for Dominos making $100K minimum with the long time employees making $200K and a few making $500K – $2M each. That is not a smart nor sustainable business practice although the owners have been willing accomplices to the madness. NO union has EVER improved the industry they are a part of and made it more profitable. They were designed to help the “little guy” make an honest wage…that is not the case here.

  35. Bigbluefan says: Sep 10, 2010 10:51 AM

    The poor players wont have health care
    Wont the new health care plan from our president
    As someone else said these players can afford health ins as even the lowest paid makes more the 90% of america.

  36. 1NationRaiderNation says: Sep 10, 2010 11:12 AM

    i know of 5billion reasons why that will not happen

  37. reno76 says: Sep 10, 2010 11:19 AM

    what is it maybe 15% of the country is union…i think the other 85 % are doing just fine without paying “dues” that go to worthless political organizations…..urinate on unions!!!!!!

  38. Rayven says: Sep 10, 2010 11:41 AM

    Bigbluefan says: September 10, 2010 10:51 AM
    The poor players wont have health care
    Wont the new health care plan from our president
    As someone else said these players can afford health ins as even the lowest paid makes more the 90% of america.

    Someone translate to English, please…

  39. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 12:22 PM

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,
    When players sign contacts they dislike after a few years, you anti-union people tell the players to honor their contracts, and that they shouldn’t have signed it if they didn’t like it.
    When the league (management) says they don’t like the deal they signed a few years ago you say the union is ruining America.
    IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!
    How do you exist with such inner-contradiction???

  40. zibby says: Sep 10, 2010 12:58 PM

    Abe wrote: “When players sign contacts they dislike after a few years, you anti-union people tell the players to honor their contracts, and that they shouldn’t have signed it if they didn’t like it.
    When the league (management) says they don’t like the deal they signed a few years ago you say the union is ruining America.
    IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!!
    How do you exist with such inner-contradiction? ??”
    —————————————————-
    My understanding is that the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, has been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.
    NFL clubs voted unanimously to exercise that option and to continue negotiating a new agreement for the 2011 season and beyond that will work better for both the clubs and the players.
    Abe I’m not sure what you’re talking about but the owners have the right to “opt out” just like a player does in certain years. I don’t see any contradiction.

  41. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 1:26 PM

    The contradiction, my good man Zibby, is that anti-union proponents are blaming the players for being greedy, taking too much of the pie, leaving the owners with barely enough, and crippling the sport. Yet are willing to overlook that the owners agreed to the deal in first place.
    When players sign deals that don’t look good after a few years it is their fault – according to anti-unionists. When the owners sign deals that don’t look good after a few years, it’s the unions fault – at least according to anti-unionists.
    That is the contradiction, and if you can’t see it you need to remove your blinders.

  42. mikelord14 says: Sep 10, 2010 2:04 PM

    Can we get something straight with regard to lockouts and strikes – There will be football in 2011 !!! The players cannot strike before the CBA expires which they are still under, it is just an uncapped year this year. The owners will not lock the players out as there is too much network money involved. The owners have NEVER locked the players out and will not. Those of you old enough should remember the last impass and it was the players who walked and came grovelling back after 4 games (they tried after 3 to try and prevent the replacement players from being financially vested for the season). We still had football albeit a much inferior form.

  43. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 2:22 PM

    Abe: You are the one wearing the blinders. The players agreed to this deal also. They agreed that the owners could opt out in 2011 or 2012 and essentially agreed to the owners’ potential lockout. Nobody can have it both ways. The crux of the problem is simply the owner’s past willingness to pay the players extraordinary amounts of money. The owners have realized that can no longer be sustained and are trying to correct the problem but the players not only want the gravy train to continue but they want even more. According to the owners, they want to grow the pie as a whole but lower the percentage the players get. That would work if the pie actually grew by as much as they expect. Nothing is guaranteed. The current system is impossible to sustain and the players simply don’t get that or, more likely, do not care as long as they get their portion.

  44. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 3:22 PM

    Hello FinFan68, thank you for joining the conversation.
    Hard to figure out where to start. Guess I’ll go from the top.
    “The players agreed to this deal also.” Well, yes. Two sides agree to every deal. A keen perception but it has nothing to do with anti-union proponents having the clear double standard I laid out in my prior post.
    “..past willingness to pay the players extraordinary amounts of money. …can no longer be sustained…” Have you been paying to the news recently? Austin gets $50 million plus, Brady sets record, Peyton, so on and so forth. Please. NFL franchises are billionaire play toys. Don’t buy into their pleas of commonality with the common man. That’s a trick of the rich since biblical times. If these owners ever feel like they simply “can’t get by,” they can sell their shares for $500 million to $2 billion and muck it up in their private planes and international estates. There’s a line out the door waiting for a chance to buy an NFL team.
    “That would work if the pie actually grew by as much as they expect.” It’s the economy, buddy. Economies go in cycles. They boom. They go bust. It’s going bust now and will go boom soon enough. Then the money will be rolling in. This has been happening for quite a long time. Trying to capitalize on it is classic, but see-through. This is nothing but the owners trying to milk the current economic climate for a better deal with players.

  45. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 4:19 PM

    There is no good reason that the players should get what they have asked for/demanded for years. The owners screwed this up long ago by stupidly agreeing to a CBA that gives the players too much. They are deserving of fair compensation for their efforts but they are in no way comparable to the ownership. They have zero financial risk (the injury risk is a BS argument and is already compensated in their inflated contracts).
    “…Austin gets $50 million plus, Brady sets record, Peyton, so on and so forth”
    Interesting, in your example you chose to cite players that were given extensions/more money without asking or holding out. Most of the anti-ownership/pay da man crowd hang on to the false truth that ownership sticks it to the players at every turn, cut productive players, and will not pay players decent compensation unless forced. I am in no way implying that you have said these things but those are the main points of your position’s proponents. Those specific examples completely debunk the anti-ownership argument on the holdouts and the CBA.
    Ultimately, my point is simple. The MILLIONS that the players get is a large sum of money regardless of the percentage of the total operating cost or profit margin. They are looking at what they get and compare it to a skewed version of what the owners get and somehow think they are getting screwed. They need to look at what they are getting and compare that to the rest of America’s situation and realize that they are not screwed, but extremely fortunate.

  46. zibby says: Sep 10, 2010 5:26 PM

    abe,
    People don’t complain about players opting out when the contract they have signed stipulates they can opt out in a certain year. People complain about players like Revis who “sit out” because they believe they should be highest paid player, although they are under contract and have no opt out clause at said time.
    There is a big difference. They owners have honored their contract and now under said contract have the choice to opt out and are exercising said choice.
    Your rational is not sound, more selective.

  47. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 5:44 PM

    FinFan68, if anywhere in your economic theory you hold the belief that individuals should accept less than they are worth, and that the proper way for to determine compensation is to somehow make a complex calculation balancing social and monetary concerns based on some notion of fairness in reasonable equitable distribution of goods then you need to take a big step back and re-examine things.
    I can’t believe you even said that.
    The thing is, I know that you don’t even believe it. It is completely contrary to the many beliefs that as a patriotic American I know you posses. Seeking out the best deal for your services is a fundamental principle of capitalism.
    But further, I mean, you don’t even know the owner’s position because you haven’t seen their books. Green Bay opened their books and all it showed was that they were making less profit. Less profit. Not losing money. Not breaking even. Less profit. As in making money. Why aren’t you telling the owner’s to be content with whatever sum their profit is? Surely the billionaires should subject themselves to the same societal monetary comparisons you want the player to, right? And if not, why not?
    Athletes are rock stars and they get paid like rock stars. People could go see any band they wanted to, but they still go see the top bands and pay huge ticket prices to see them because they are the best. There are a lot of cheaper options than going to see new Rolling Stones tour. Yet, there is something about seeing the best. Only reason the NFL is the top football league is because they have the best football players. Because the NFL has the best football players they making billions. That’s why the players deserve to make the millions they make. That’s why they look at the entire pie and want their rightful piece of the pie. Their talents generate the pie. People pay to see the best.
    I wonder if you would tell companies, “Hey guys, look, I know right now you’re making huge profits, but you don’t really need that much. Look at the less fortunate people. You should sell your goods for less than they are worth, and just be happy.”
    I mean, it sounds ridiculous, right? Of course. It is ridiculous.

  48. intrepidbullitt says: Sep 10, 2010 5:58 PM

    A union for millionaires – forget ‘terrorism’, this is a prime example of how to watch your society circle the drain.

  49. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 6:10 PM

    Zibby, people don’t complain when players not signing when they have the right to? Really? Well let me draw your attention the numerous rookie holdouts every year that are certainly complained about by people of such a belief. Those rookies are under no contract, and yet when they have not agreed to a contract by the time training camp starts (even though the common tactic among teams now is to not start negotiations until just before camp so as to increase pressure to sign) they are labeled by people on the side for which you are arguing as greedy, money hungry, disruptive, immature, “not getting it” and many more disparaging characterizations.
    This has never been about whether the owners were permitted to opt out of the deal.
    This is about people blaming the union for forcing the owners to opt out. If the owner’s signed a bad deal it is on them, no one else. I believe personal responsibility is the term. It ain’t the union’s fault the owners signed the deal.

  50. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 6:28 PM

    Nice rant Abe: too bad it is not really relevant to what I said. I said the players are entitled to fair compensation…not extravagant compensation, fair compensation. If the word fair is what you have a problem with, I simply mean…not excessive or extreme. I do not mean that it is unfair that the fry cook at McDonalds does not make as much as an NFL athlete. This group of players is NOT the product…the game itself is the product. You seem to think fans just support the team because of the players. Umm…not exactly. The players have a little to do with it but not as much as you seem to think. Players turn over every year. Great players get traded or retire every year. If it was about specific players and not the game, then the fan base should drop every time a popular player moves on…it doesn’t. You said yourself that the GB books showed less profit. Player compensation is on the rise and profits are falling. It is logical for ownership to try to do something before the profits turn into debts and adjusting the CBA is the only way they can stem the tide. I am not implying the players should accept minimum wage, but they need to be more realistic. The players will still make millions and both sides can still turn a profit. Contrary to the belief of those such as Revis, it is entirely possible to feed one’s family (and in his case, a small country) on the salaries paid to NFL players.

  51. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 6:56 PM

    How are you determining what “fair compensation” is? In a capitalist economic system “fair compensation” is whatever the market will pay you. Yet you are suggesting that the player should take less than the best deal they can get. Thus by strict definition you are saying they shouldn’t not be fairly compensated. Hello, are you paying attention? You are deeming “X” amount of dollars to be enough, and saying “hey guys, just be happy your life doesn’t suck.” That’s freaking anti-capitalism.

  52. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 7:14 PM

    No Abe…it isn’t anticapitalism and there is no reason to start getting shitty. Fair compensation is determined by the owners (collectively). For the NFL, it is the ownership of the 32 franchises that determine the market and some players will be coveted by more teams and their individual value will increase to the limits set forth in the CBA. A prime example is Vincent Jackson. He thinks he is elite and should be paid as such, but no team would accept his contract demands…that equates to ZERO market for VJ at his asking price. If the players believe they are not getting fair compensation, they could, at the end of this CBA, abandon the NFL for the lucrative CFL and UFL franchises that surely would pay them much more than what they would have to “settle” for in the NFL.

  53. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 8:09 PM

    Wow. If you don’t understand how what you said in your 6:28 PM post violates capitalist principles, I don’t really know what to say. You are subjectively defining what “excessive compensation” is based on “comparison to the rest of America’s situation.” Those are your words. They are against basic principles of capitalism. You have to confront reality sometime.

  54. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 8:31 PM

    The overall point is not even close to what you make it out to be by taking comments out of context. Reality is the NFL owners determine market value because the 32 owners ARE THE MARKET. If the players don’t like it then they can look for just compensation elsewhere. To act like they are or would be destitute (“How am I supposed to feed my family?” –Revis) when they are making the money that they are is laughable. Look at the entire point rather than looking for small snippets that fit into your hazy argument. Bottom line: The players are rich by anyone’s standards. Good for them. To make unrealistic demands at the detriment of the industry itself is moronic. Both sides are at fault and both sides need to realistically come to a compromise. I am not against capitalism or an individal’s desire to make as much as possible. I am against the union’s inability to see that their stance will lead to the killing of the cash cow they willingly exploit, yet deplore.

  55. Abe Froeman says: Sep 10, 2010 8:47 PM

    The context of “excessive compensation” was a discussion about compensation, and “comparison to the rest of America’s situation” was in context of you explaining your statement about why players should not be compensated based on equitable % but instead based on “comparison with the rest of America’s situation.”
    How you are so wrongfully accusing me of taking you out of context is preposterous. If you don’t know what you wrote, go read it again. Since we were only ever talking about one subject it is impossible for me to have taken you out of context. The context was always the same. You are an extremely confused person, and it is impossible to have a rationale conversation with you. Good night.

  56. FinFan68 says: Sep 10, 2010 8:57 PM

    Abe: For someone who seems to embrace capitalism and all its benefits (of which I agree) your fervent support for this union is puzzling, since, in general, unions are the biggest detriment to capitalism itself. They serve as a form of cartel that serve their own interests at the expense of everyone else and the industry in which they are employed. There was a tima and place where unions were needed and were effective, but they always extort more than is necessary and every unionized industry eventually fails.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!