Skip to content

NFL wants Congress out of labor dispute, except when it helps the NFL

Heath Shuler AP

Some of you blame the NFL for the current predicament that football fans face.  Some of you blame the players.

We blame everyone, since grown men of goodwill and common sense and reasonable intelligence should have been able to figure out how to carve up a $9 billion pie.

And so whenever anyone in this debacle-bordering-on-shibacle says or does something that merits a good calling out, call them out we will.

This hour’s target is the league, which has long resisted any suggestion that Congress be involved in the current dispute between the NFL and the NFLPA*.  On January 21, 2011, for example, the league posted at its labor propaganda website a blurb declaring that 99 percent of all fans oppose Congressional involvement in the labor dispute.

“That isn’t anything Congress needs to regulate, nor should it require federal intervention at all,” said Ed Morrissey, proprietor of the site that conducted the poll.  “As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, puts it, ‘The NFL and NFLPA are literally and figuratively big boys.  They do not need Congress’s help to referee every business dispute.’”

Apparently, someone from the one-percent minority is minding the store at NFLLabor.com today.

The latest blurb posted at the site points out that three Congressmen have written a letter to NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith, urging him to meet (for the first time ever) with NFL Alumni president George Martin.

“The retirement benefits for former players are an important issue,” Congressmen Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D-N.C.; pictured) said in their letter to Smith.  “Therefore, we urge you to set time aside to meet soon with Mr. Martin and NFL Alumni. . . .  We look forward to a prompt response to our request.”

Given that the league’s latest offer increases benefits to retired players, the NFL obviously is hoping to squeeze the NFLPA* by persuading current and former players to clamor for the offer to be accepted, or at a minimum for further negotiations to occur.

And that’s fine.  But it’s horribly poor form, in  for the NFL to take the position that Congress should stay out of the labor dispute when involvement could pressure the league to do a deal, and then to embrace Congressional involvement when it could pressure the players to do a deal.

Permalink 50 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
50 Responses to “NFL wants Congress out of labor dispute, except when it helps the NFL”
  1. purplescar says: Mar 13, 2011 2:19 PM

    Once again my own personal fan response to ANYTHING related to the labor BS ..

    What’s this feeling coming over me? Oh yeah, it’s the urge(sorta like having to piss) to tell the owners, the players, and their families(which I’m also sure that this whole thing is just about making sure they are taken care of) to F*** OFF!
    Hello MLB it’s been a while.

  2. lunarpie says: Mar 13, 2011 2:25 PM

    Congress has enough to deal with.

    If the NFL and PLAYERS can’t deal with their greed, why should the taxpayers pay for Congress to deal with this crap?!?!?

    I say the fans sue both parties in a class action lawsuit with the goal of lowering the cost to the fan of everything that is associated with football.

  3. oldhamletman says: Mar 13, 2011 2:29 PM

    they better hope Congress stays out of it… cause it will get screwed up for all concerned in two seconds…

    anyway, doesn’t our government have better things to do, like protecting the guy on the street from a silent Depression?

  4. oldbyrd says: Mar 13, 2011 2:34 PM

    I think Obama ought to settle it. Look at the great job that he’s done with health care. Everybaody’s got an exception. Sebelius double counts and premiums are going thru the roof. Actually The President doesn’t have to get involved just send Sebelius, Sebelius, Sebelius…See how easy it is????

  5. rovibe says: Mar 13, 2011 2:36 PM

    -Two wars
    -High unemployment
    -Record debt and deficit

    I’d say they’re right – Congress has much better things to be doing right now than screwing around with pro sports quabbles.

    Not that I’m confident Congress will do their job anyway, but you get the idea.

  6. iknowfootballandyoudont says: Mar 13, 2011 2:38 PM

    Congress should keep it’s nose out of this.
    The courts should keep out of this.(deny the NFLPA)

    If myself and my fellow coworkers go on strike neither Congress nor the courts will help us or the company. Only negotiating gets a contract done, or remain apart and either the company hires scabs or we fold and return to work.

    Show me ONE other company in this great country where the employees are guarenteed 59.6% of ALL company revenues whether the company earns a profit or not. NAME ONE!!!

    Name how many companies offer FREE health insurance for employees and family anymore.
    Name how many companies offer their employees free rides home if they had too much to drink?
    Name how many companies pay their brand new employees 5 yr/50 million dollar contracts without even knowing they can do the job well enough?
    Name how many companies are virtually handcuffed and unable to fire employees such as Terrel Owens?

  7. thebigolddog says: Mar 13, 2011 2:39 PM

    Are you saying that the NFL owners asked the Congressmen to send the letter or are you saying by reporting the news that a letter was sent, they are embracing Congressional involvement?

  8. wryly1 says: Mar 13, 2011 2:40 PM

    You can be sure that the interest of units of government, be they local, state or federal, is not concern for the owners, players or even the sport itself.

    They are looking at their local economy and constituents – and the thousands of related jobs and millions in revenues generated during the season.

  9. dempsey63 says: Mar 13, 2011 2:41 PM

    Where is the respect for the game itself? Where is the foresight?

    The players appear to have no regard for the men whose sacrifices made their current standard of living possible. “Let them eat cake. No, wait, give us the cake and let them grovel for the crumbs.”

    Someday, of course, this generation of prima donnas will have squandered its earnings and will find itself drooling in a concussion-fueled haze without a safety net–only we will be talking about the upcoming strike of 2039 and how self-centered the combatants are, snatching even the crumbs away from the incapacitated gladiators of the 2010 era.

    The owners assume that we fans wear cargo pants. “There are plenty more pockets where those came from. Keep shaking ‘em down, boys.”

    Maybe it’s time for us fans to demonstrate transparency by opening up our pockets to both sides and showing that we have nothing more to give.

  10. zaggs says: Mar 13, 2011 2:46 PM

    Outside of PR (we at least care about former players, so sayeth the league) this has nothing to do with getting Congress involved. Retired players have very little bearing and if the current players had their say wouldn’t even have that.

  11. rovibe says: Mar 13, 2011 2:49 PM

    Show me ONE other company in this great country where the employees are guarenteed 59.6% of ALL company revenues whether the company earns a profit or not. NAME ONE!!!

    ————————————

    Wisconsin Teachers’ Union?

  12. assnfootball says: Mar 13, 2011 2:50 PM

    Personally I don’t see why Congress should inject itself. But if they did I won’t be as mad compared to how they stole tax payer money and gave it to the largest banks who triggered the recession. Worse of all, banks in other countries got American Tax payer dollars too.

  13. luckywi says: Mar 13, 2011 2:52 PM

    Name one job, that isn’t a professional sport, with an astronomical rate of severe and debilitating injuries and can void your contract at anytime?

    Name one job outside of professional sports where people will buy a shirt with YOUR name on it? For about $50.00 OVER what it would cost if it was just a tshirt on shelf?

    Name one person who may be a stooge for the NFL owners on this site? (iknowfootballandyoudon’t, looking at you…)

  14. backdapack says: Mar 13, 2011 2:53 PM

    do you think Obama would have the time? afterall he is way too busy playing golf, hosting parties, jetting off on vacations and pointing blame at his opposition for all of his shortcomings.

    1/20/2013

  15. bigsuede says: Mar 13, 2011 2:56 PM

    Iknowfootball- there are contracts like that made up ALL THE TIME in entertainment. I believe Celine Dion’s agreement with Ceasers pays her almost all the gate receipts for her show.

    When the employees are the product- they get a high percentage of revenue. You sound incredibly ignorant.

    The NFL could just go with no salary cap- works out for baseball- i am pretty sure the players are fine with that.

  16. rovibe says: Mar 13, 2011 3:04 PM

    Iknowfootball- there are contracts like that made up ALL THE TIME in entertainment. I believe Celine Dion’s agreement with Ceasers pays her almost all the gate receipts for her show.

    —————————–

    Sorry, but that’s a bad analogy. Celine Dion is more unique as a marketable talent than any one football player. The average NFL player plays just 4 years, anyway. With that high turnover rate and all the THOUSANDS of college prospects trying to replace them, your logic doesn’t fit this scenario at all.

    If Caesars cans Dion, they’ll have a hard time finding someone: 1) as talented, 2 ) as marketable, 3) as profitable, 4) ready and willing to go.

    If a team cans a player, they just go to the bench.

    Apples and oranges.

  17. luckywi says: Mar 13, 2011 3:05 PM

    Also, at the very least the quality of the product that professional sports put out is COMPLETELY dependant on their “employees”. But more likely the product itself is dependant on their employees. Most, not all, but most, other jobs in the world could be filled by another person, with comprable skills, at a competetive rate. In pro sports that just isn’t true(see the replacement games, with replacement athletes,for comparison) And their employment can’t just simply be terminated at the whim of the owner without signifigant recourse(sp?).

    So…without the athletes, the product suffers, and the money dwindles. So 59.6% is a reasonable amount, considering without the caliber of athletes out there, product suffers, and profits drop. All that said, it’s 9 billion dollars. Get it together, and figure it out.

  18. hobartbaker says: Mar 13, 2011 3:07 PM

    Heath Shuler flashes his famous 16 Wonderlic score smile.

  19. rovibe says: Mar 13, 2011 3:10 PM

    BTW — I live in Vegas, and I know a thing or two about how the casinos operate regarding these high paid entertainers.

    It is commonplace for casinos to pay MORE to an entertainer than they can possibly make back on ticket sales, be it a house act like Dion or a one night tour stop for any band you can name.

    The logic is simple: It’s worth losing some money to pay Metallica to play New Year’s Eve in a venue that holds only 1800 for $500 per ticket — because it will draw 1800 people who apparently have a lot of money to blow, and who will be stinking drunk when the show ends and they stumble out onto the casino floor — and right into the waiting arms of all those blackjack dealers, slot machines, and bartenders.

    So again, your logic doesn’t fit this argument.

    Here’s some logic that DOES fit:

    If the players don’t like the rules, maybe they should all save up billions and billions of dollars of their own money, and go start their own player-owned league. Of course, they’ll have to figure out first how to get all that money they’ll need, and assume the risk of dumping their fortunes on something that may or not not pay them back.

    THAT is what the owners have done. So for anyone to say the players deserve the SAME money as the owners is absolutely INSANE. It would be no different for the pizza delivery guy to demand an equal income as the owner of the shop that employs him. Get real!

  20. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 13, 2011 3:14 PM

    “Antitrust exemption” anyone?

  21. hobartbaker says: Mar 13, 2011 3:19 PM

    Schuler knocked off a 16 on the Wonderlic test, and ended up being too dumb to make it as a football player. Luckily for him he managed to get into politics.

  22. chatham10 says: Mar 13, 2011 3:22 PM

    Oh sure, let’s get Congress into this, most of them would not know a football coach from a stagecoach and they are busy the way it is screwing up things. I do believe that Congress has the great health care and retirement package so they can understand the players having that sweet deal also.

  23. oldbyrd says: Mar 13, 2011 3:22 PM

    You want congress to get involved??? Most of us will be dead before they play another game.

  24. 44kyle says: Mar 13, 2011 3:29 PM

    I see nothing wrong with Congressmen just asking the players representative to talk to the representative of the NFL Alumni. I think PFT is stirring things up way too much. The request took probably 18 seconds. Why all the hostility?

  25. 1historian says: Mar 13, 2011 3:29 PM

    Let us not lose sight of the simple fact that the NFL draft, like ALL drafts, is a legalized monopoly.

    Let us not lose sight of the simple fact that this is nothing more than entertainment – these people are entertainers, nothing more nothing less. They do NOT provide an essential service to the public, and the whole spectacle – which I must admit I enjoy in front of the TV of a Sunday afternoon starting late August every Sunday for about 22 weeks a year, complete with beer, chips, or whatever I darn well please, is more than a bit reminiscent of the old Roman spectacle of ‘Panem et Circenses’, or ‘bread and circuses’, spectacles which the emperor would throw for the gum-chewing public in order to divert the attention (of the gum-chewing public) from the rather obvious fact that the empire was falling down at their feet.

    See ‘The Gladiator’ for examples of what I am talking about.

  26. 44kyle says: Mar 13, 2011 3:31 PM

    ^^^I’ll answer my own question in the post above.
    The article is written by a lawyer. Lawyers get paid to get people angry with each other and keep them angry as long as the money keeps coming. Lawyers are soooooooooooo much worse than anyone can imagine.

  27. ncsteeler says: Mar 13, 2011 3:33 PM

    Shuler is my rep. I’d say his rating as a congressman is comparable to his QB rating (about 55). He basically sits on the fence and seldom is a consequental voice in anything. A big bill come up and he usually says I’m in favor of whatever but I’m going to vote against it because it’s exactly what I want, not that I’m going to say what I want. Just as decisive as he was with the Redskins.

  28. sudzy11 says: Mar 13, 2011 3:47 PM

    I believe that is the same 99% of fans who want an 18 game season.

    Lacy Clay is my rep. He is a incompetent buffoon. He adds no credibility to the process.

  29. luckywi says: Mar 13, 2011 3:49 PM

    I’m really beginning to beleive the NFL is stocking this site with stooges. I can’t wait for them to start citing “Yes” and “No” numbers on specific topics.

  30. luckywi says: Mar 13, 2011 3:53 PM

    luckywi says:
    Mar 13, 2011 2:52 PM
    Name one job, that isn’t a professional sport, with an astronomical rate of severe and debilitating injuries and can void your contract at anytime?

    Name one job outside of professional sports where people will buy a shirt with YOUR name on it? For about $50.00 OVER what it would cost if it was just a tshirt on shelf?

    Name one person who may be a stooge for the NFL owners on this site? (iknowfootballandyoudon’t, looking at you…)

    5 yes 10no

    Yeah, those numbers seem reasonable. The argument be a little flawed, but like free healthcare for millionares, but seriously 10-5?

  31. east96st says: Mar 13, 2011 4:10 PM

    “Show me ONE other company in this great country where the employees are guarenteed 59.6% of ALL company revenues whether the company earns a profit or not. NAME ONE!!!”

    1) the owners get 1 billion off the top before the players see a dime, so you’re already wrong. 2) given the TV contracts, it’s quite obvious they are making a profit. The debate is how much. 3) the owners signed the contract that GAVE the players that rate. If they felt it was an unfair split, they should not have signed. Personal responsibility and accountability are important when signing multi-billion dollar contracts.

    “Name how many companies offer FREE health insurance for employees and family anymore.”

    Just about every CEO, CFO, & COO and all the board members of the S&P 500 get this perk. It’s all about your value to the company and what you are able to negotiate in your contract.

    “Name how many companies offer their employees free rides home if they had too much to drink?”

    When I worked for the networks, we paid for rides home for the on air talent all the time. Drunk, sober, or in between.

    “Name how many companies pay their brand new employees 5 yr/50 million dollar contracts without even knowing they can do the job well enough?”

    There is NO law which forces an owner to draft a player with the top ten picks. A team can chose to allow other teams to pick before them and wait to pay a more reasonable rate. Even still, you’re talking about 10 to 15 players a year. Most rookies don’t come close to that.

    “Name how many companies are virtually handcuffed and unable to fire employees such as Terrel Owens?”

    Who forced ANY of the owners to sign him?

    Any more rants you need dismissed?

  32. jbibler says: Mar 13, 2011 4:27 PM

    iknowfootballandyoudont – you might want to change your name to idonotknowjackaboutbusiness

    The players are guaranteed a certain percentage after the owners subtract an amount for their expenses, that’s really what the fight is about. The salary floor is what sets the minimum the players get and cap protects the owners – that’s why those percentages vary from year to year. The 59.6 is not a guaranteed number, it’s just what it fell out to last year.

    But aside from that, no other business has this issue because it’s illegal to do this except under a labor agreement. If you want the NFL to work like the “other companies in this great country” then there would be no draft, and free agency would be unrestricted at any service time. There would be no salary cap or floor. And the sharing of revenues between the 32 teams would be severely curtailed, after all they are competitors. That is a free market system and it’s pretty much how baseball works – you can decide for yourself if that’s good or bad.

    iknowfootballandyoudont must be a Republican – good at screaming about the free market while being too stupid to know what that actually means.

  33. stanklepoot says: Mar 13, 2011 4:29 PM

    With all due respect to the league and anyone involved in their poll, when have 99% of football fans ever agreed on anything? If they were going to post a poll or survey that has obviously been shaped to create a false sense of overwhelming support for their side of things, they should at least be smart enough to not make the results so impossibly uniform. As someone who had took stats and grad level sociology courses in college, I soon as I saw that 99% a stream of questions came to mind. What was the population size and makeup for the poll? What language was used in the poll, and how might it have shaped the responses? These, and any number of other factors have an immense impact on the results of polls and surveys. Given the seemingly impossible near unanimity of the responses, I’m left with little choice but to see this as a rigged poll or survey.

  34. stanklepoot says: Mar 13, 2011 4:41 PM

    rovibe says: Mar 13, 2011 3:04 PM

    Iknowfootball- there are contracts like that made up ALL THE TIME in entertainment. I believe Celine Dion’s agreement with Ceasers pays her almost all the gate receipts for her show.

    —————————–

    Sorry, but that’s a bad analogy. Celine Dion is more unique as a marketable talent than any one football player. The average NFL player plays just 4 years, anyway. With that high turnover rate and all the THOUSANDS of college prospects trying to replace them, your logic doesn’t fit this scenario at all.

    If Caesars cans Dion, they’ll have a hard time finding someone: 1) as talented, 2 ) as marketable, 3) as profitable, 4) ready and willing to go.

    If a team cans a player, they just go to the bench.

    Apples and oranges.
    _____________________________
    You’re joking right? The NFL isn’t just football, it’s football played at an elite level, featuring players superior to any that can be found in any other league. If an elite player slips through the cracks and shows their talent in another league, they’ll end up moving to the NFL. That is why the NFL is so popular. Americans love to see the best players compete against each other. Without those elite players the NFL is no better than the UFL OR AFL. We certainly don’t watch because we love all of the league’s rules. As for the rarity of talent, I can’t speak for Celine Dion because I can’t stand her overly melodramatic Streissand wanna be act. When it comes to football, however, some of these players have very rare skill sets indeed. Take a look at the QB situation. In the entire world, the NFL can’t find 32 people that can play QB at what would be considered an elite level in the NFL. When there’s fewer than 32 in the entire world who can do what you do, that sounds pretty rare to me.

  35. stanklepoot says: Mar 13, 2011 4:54 PM

    If the players don’t like the rules, maybe they should all save up billions and billions of dollars of their own money, and go start their own player-owned league. Of course, they’ll have to figure out first how to get all that money they’ll need, and assume the risk of dumping their fortunes on something that may or not not pay them back.

    THAT is what the owners have done. So for anyone to say the players deserve the SAME money as the owners is absolutely INSANE. It would be no different for the pizza delivery guy to demand an equal income as the owner of the shop that employs him. Get real!
    _________________________
    and if the owners don’t like sharing their revenue, they can suit up and go at each other on Sunday afternoons and see how many people watch and how much the networks are willing to pay for the rights to air those games. Your delivery guy analogy is absurd. Anyone with a drivers license can do that job. The same is most certainly not true for football.
    Oh, and as for the horrible risk the owners are facing, name me one owner who has lost money, no matter how poor their team has done. Think about that, there are teams that have been managed so poorly that they have become jokes to the majority of football fans (that’s on the owner and the front office he’s put together btw), and even they all make money. If a normal company were run as poorly as some of these teams, the company would have gone bankrupt years ago. So, I really don’t buy the idea of some horrible risk the owners face. In the early days of the sport, yeah, but not now. That’s ignoring the fact that a number of these owners did nothing more than inherit their team, meaning that they certainly didn’t put anything at risk.

  36. bigsuede says: Mar 13, 2011 5:03 PM

    Rovibe- a poster asks what other business does these things- and I pointed out that it happens in entertainment. But if you want more of an apples to apples comparison- look at the New York Yankees. They actually spent more on their team than they brought in to grow there television network- and now they make much more profit than any other team.

    You didnt see the yankee’s complain and ask the players for money back because they were starting the YES network- same thing here- if the owners want a stadium- use your own money and buy it!

    I don’t understand ANYONE who argues that owners earn their money. More than half are INHERITORS who did nothing more than win the birth lottery….

    I am a niner fan- I would rather my money went to patrick willis than jed york- EVERYTIME.

  37. tmb333 says: Mar 13, 2011 5:08 PM

    The players have six options if they do not like the owners pay scale:

    1 Go play in Canada
    2. Go play in the UFL
    3. Go play in the Arena FL
    4. Start their own league
    5. Find other employment utilizing their free college degree they earned.
    6. Don’t work at all and live off all that money they earned playing football and saved for a rainy day.

  38. iknowfootballandyoudont says: Mar 13, 2011 5:30 PM

    @Luckywi

    Do your homework sonny.
    The jerseys are licensed thru the NPLPA, and they set the prices in conjunction with the league and Reebok for apparel that has player names on them.
    So next smart remark Mr. Stooge?

  39. iknowfootballandyoudont says: Mar 13, 2011 5:33 PM

    luckywi says:
    Mar 13, 2011 2:52 PM
    Name one job, that isn’t a professional sport, with an astronomical rate of severe and debilitating injuries and can void your contract at anytime?

    ****************************
    How about U. S. military servicemen and women?
    How about Firefighters?
    The players may get injured, but the above put their life on the line each and every day for a small fraction of the pay your egomaniac players make.
    You are a real stooge

  40. thefiesty1 says: Mar 13, 2011 5:36 PM

    No, no, no. Those jerks in congress will only screw up an already screwed up mess.

  41. jc1958cool says: Mar 13, 2011 5:38 PM

    rovibe: wisconsin teachers union

    how retarded are you? why didn’t walker (a.k.a.) pinnochio lock the teachers out!! RECALL

  42. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 13, 2011 7:20 PM

    tmb333 says: Mar 13, 2011 5:08 PM

    “The players have six options if they do not like the owners pay scale:”

    Since when are the players complaining about their pay?
    Everything I’ve read says the owners are complaining about theirs.

  43. jjljr says: Mar 13, 2011 7:25 PM

    iknowfootballandyoudont really should change his name to idontknowanythingaboutanything. i don’t know who he is, but I’d bet anything he is a republican … his opinions sound just like people who complain about “obamacare”. here’s the Crux Of The Biscuit — are any of the owners planning on returning the public funds to the cities who built their stadiums? do they plan to return any PSL’s that were sold to finance their stadiums? when the answer to either of these questions is “yes,”, then the owners will have a legitimate gripe. until then, the only “risk” they took was to purchase the team — but since no owner has ever lost money when selling a team, it’s a real stretch to call that a risk.

    I really don’t understand why anybody reading this column supports the owners.

  44. seabreezes51 says: Mar 13, 2011 7:30 PM

    Open the books.

  45. tmb333 says: Mar 13, 2011 8:16 PM

    @FoozieGrooler

    Apparently they did not like what the owners were going to do or they would have inked a deal, thus they have six options.

  46. dontcallmepete says: Mar 13, 2011 9:02 PM

    I haven’t heard any team say that they’ve a)lost money b)have lost money or c) say that they’ll have to sell because of the current financial situation.

  47. 6thsense79 says: Mar 13, 2011 9:04 PM

    rovibe says:
    Mar 13, 2011 2:49 PM
    Show me ONE other company in this great country where the employees are guarenteed 59.6% of ALL company revenues whether the company earns a profit or not. NAME ONE!!!
    ———————————–
    Actually NFL players are not guaranteed 59.6% of all revenue they are guaranteed (depending on the total revenue in a given year) about 53% of all revenues for 2010 or 59.6% of revenues after a $1 billion deduction to the owners. In any case what exactly is your point if NFL players are guaranteed a certain amount or if they happen to be the only group guaranteed that amount??

    Wasn’t those guarantees negotiated by both the players and the owners? Was a gun forced to the owner’s heads forcing them to agree to that? How is it the owners felt that was fair deal in 2006 when revenue was $6 billion but it’s absolutely unworkable a mere 4 years later when revenue rose %50 to $9 billion?

  48. 6thsense79 says: Mar 13, 2011 9:12 PM

    iknowfootballandyoudont says:
    Mar 13, 2011 5:33 PM
    luckywi says:
    Mar 13, 2011 2:52 PM
    Name one job, that isn’t a professional sport, with an astronomical rate of severe and debilitating injuries and can void your contract at anytime?

    ****************************
    How about U. S. military servicemen and women?
    How about Firefighters?
    The players may get injured, but the above put their life on the line each and every day for a small fraction of the pay your egomaniac players make.
    You are a real stooge
    —————————————-
    All those civil servants that get injured are provided with medical care for life and I’m sorry but the population of military servicemen and firefighters that are injured or face debilitating injuries are no where near those of an NFL player. Let me put it this way….If you were to become a firefighter you are less likely to obtain cumalative permantely crippling injuries than if your occupation was professional football player.

  49. dontcallmepete says: Mar 13, 2011 9:36 PM

    Without Congress the league would not be the league as you guys profess to love it. Congress
    intervened in the professional football arena, granting a statutory exemption to the AFL-NFL
    merger by amending the Sports Broadcasting act.
    The act exempted from antitrust scrutiny the combining of professional football leagues. Congress intended the Football Merger Act to help professional sports leagues run more efficiently and avoid ruinous competition. The statute amounted to a congressionally authorized acquisition of market power potentially amounting to monopoly power.

  50. dontcallmepete says: Mar 13, 2011 9:42 PM

    It would be no different for the pizza delivery guy to demand an equal income as the owner of the shop that employs him. Get real!

    Except high school football is the pizza shop, college football is the steak house and the NFL is the five-star restaurant. Do you fire the chef because he wants an equal share? No, unless the owner knows how to cook. The owners signed the CBA and if they cry poverty now then open the books. Nobody has demonstrated any current or potential losses. I fail to see how the split affects any fan. You’re still paying the same amount for tickets unless you’re as the Cowboys say part of the “98% of the public who’s never purchased a ticket to an NFL game”

Leave a Reply

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