Skip to content

The “who do you support?” poll, take two

tug-of-war-002 Getty Images

Over the weekend, in response to comments from Browns cornerback Joe Haden that fans are “definitely” in the corner of the players, we decided to take the temperature of PFT Planet.

The results were stunning.  Only 22 percent of those who responded supported the players.  The rest supported the owners, or neither.

A reader has suggested that, in light of the events of the past three days, we should re-insert the thermometer (not that way), given the possibility that the pendulum has swung.

So let us know where you now stand.

Permalink 78 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
78 Responses to “The “who do you support?” poll, take two”
  1. shamburg says: Apr 28, 2011 11:29 AM

    NEITHER! I JUST WANT FOOTBALL!

    If that means siding with what the players on an issue, then I side with the players. If tomorrow the owners raise an issue that will get us football sooner, I side with them. Period!

  2. nyctexan says: Apr 28, 2011 11:29 AM

    D. The Fans

  3. galvestontexans says: Apr 28, 2011 11:30 AM

    I still support the TEAM. Players will come and go but I will still be a fan of the team.

  4. mataug says: Apr 28, 2011 11:32 AM

    None!

  5. snnyjcbs says: Apr 28, 2011 11:33 AM

    Keep taking poll after poll until you finally come up with one where the players win, what is this the 10th Poll you have done?, the owners have come out on top in all by a wide margin, word is the Players Association has caught on and sending in players to vote, they are close in this Poll of what 2 people lol. Spin it any way you want the people I talk to want the players to fall and fall HARD. Most of these dudes will be bagging groceries in a few years but the game will go on, players come and go but the Colors Live On.

  6. irisht53 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:34 AM

    I still support the owners, however I think they’re making a bad situation worse by turning players away that come in to work out.

    The easy(-ish) solution in my mind would be to start the league year, implement 2010 rules as starting point (the courts would have to agree there’s nothing wrong with starting there). If the players then want to fight the rules one-by-one (including RFAs, draft, etc) they can, but in the mean time players could be traded, cut and UFAs under 2010 rules would be able to sign.

  7. tednancy says: Apr 28, 2011 11:35 AM

    Now that we know that the players are attacking the draft and the salary cap and the NFL as we know it, I think any true fan must support the owners.

    They certainly aren’t perfect, and they should never have trusted De Smith and the union, but true fans will always side with those who protect our game, and not with those who seek its destruction.

  8. idriveamoped says: Apr 28, 2011 11:35 AM

    Wow you guys “Readers” are all to funny. A few days ago, the owners were running away in a landslide. Nothing new has really changed and yet now the players are winning. I guess if the media started hyping up Goats, everyone would be flocking to the Goats pick.

  9. bsmb says: Apr 28, 2011 11:36 AM

    im so over this

  10. nfl25 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:36 AM

    Majority of people are just on whos side is winning. I am sure there will be a bunch of player backers now, and I am sure they are all packer fans and last year they were saints fans.

    The players cheerleaders have no idea what they are rooting for. The players don’t care if the game is ruined in the next few years. They only have a few years to play and want to get as much $$ as they can. I got no beef with the player wanting to get paid, who can blame them, most people would do the same thing, but I aint gonna be a cheerleader for them while they do it.

    I am on the owners side not cuz I care about a bunch of dudes in suits I never met, but because they want the game to stay the best sport in America. Anyone who thinks the owners don’t want that is nuts, that’s what makes them so rich. You guys need to stop falling in love wit these players, you should care about ur team and the organization

  11. bluestree says: Apr 28, 2011 11:38 AM

    I’m not buying the results on any of this. For those of you who don’t know, businesses often hire public relations firms to steer these polls. I’m sure there are firms who have thousands of WordPress accounts for that purpose. I know because I use a pr firm in my business to win “best of” awards given out by newspapers. So don’t believe any of this.

  12. firethorn1001 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:38 AM

    I support neither side. Both sides are acting like little kids.

  13. p4ever says: Apr 28, 2011 11:38 AM

    With all the NFL paid trolls roaming this site, this is very random

  14. bigbrad184 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:39 AM

    They both suck. Just figure it out and give us football back. Now.

  15. Kaz says: Apr 28, 2011 11:39 AM

    I have to support the Owners. I like the draft, free agency, and rules and regulations of the league as it relates to salary cap etc. I don’t agree with the players and their determination to end all of that.

  16. endzonezombie says: Apr 28, 2011 11:40 AM

    There needs to be a fourth category: the judicial system. I wonder if the NFL’s status will become a political football tossed between a prolabor MN federal court and a probusiness 8th Apellate court. Will profootball be cancelled in 2011 due to a lockout as this case stubbornly weaves its way to the Supreme Court? The American people will be observing if the judicial system is as partisan as Congress has become. But at some point, even Congress has to heed the outcry from constituents ( small businesses and communities economically dependent upon the NFL) and fans who are harmed by the lockout. When this mess is over, the leagues legal fees should be paid from the owners pockets and not factored into team expenses.

  17. thewhitestguyhere says: Apr 28, 2011 11:42 AM

    You dont need a survey for that, just post a positive comment in favor of the players and watch how many thumb’s down you get

  18. tremoluxman says: Apr 28, 2011 11:42 AM

    The alleged bias of a non-existent liberal court aside, the owners have been exposed repeatedly for their unfair practices. Bear in mind, not one team is losing money, if I’m not mistaken. The issue is not team profitability, it’s the degree of team profitability. IMO, the owners aren’t satisfied with just making a modest profit, they want to swing the biggest profit ‘dick’ among the other owners. They all want the bragging rights in the ownership club that their’s is the biggest.
    Ownership in the NFL is like any other business. Management will always try to screw their employees out of as much ans they can and pay them as little as they can. It just so happens that the scale of money for owners and players is just much larger than most other businesses. Management style is the same regardless of the size of the business.

  19. ragintd says: Apr 28, 2011 11:44 AM

    Shouldn’t the NFL be able to make up rules for the franchises? I mean, McDonalds restaurants are all independatly owned but the individual owner can’t say, “you know what, screw the special sauce on the BIG MAC, I’m going to use tarter and hot sauce instead”. Maybe the NFL should change their charter to reflex how other franchise corparations dicate to individual owners operate.

    As it stands right now, the players are going to change and probably ruin the NFL as we know it. Unlimited free agency and such will make the NFL into the MLB. Get ready for 4 teams buying all the talent year after year. And if you don’t think that can’t happen, just look at the 49ers in the 90s before they got busted for salary cap violations.

  20. descendency says: Apr 28, 2011 11:45 AM

    I support whoever is getting me football.

  21. tednancy says: Apr 28, 2011 11:45 AM

    I think the vote is inherently biased by its very premise: that a second poll is needed to amend the first poll. People see this and think “something must have changed in the last three days to make fans reconsider their support for the owners so PFT is re-polling them and expecting a pro-player response”

    The tail wags the dog. The very fact that this poll is being taken skews the result toward the union side, because the implication is that PFT expects a different result.

    Those who have swung to the union side clearly never bothered to understand the issues at stake in the first place.

    If anything, the news that the players are attacking the draft, salary cap, and competative structure of the NFL should cause all informed fans to vote pro-owner.

    Pro-owner in this case, at least, equals pro-game.

  22. celtks says: Apr 28, 2011 11:46 AM

    I supported the players before and still do. The simple rationale is, the NFL and players had a mutually agreed upon CBA. When it expired, the owners wanted to essentially deliver a large pay cut to the players, while showing no justification for doing so through financial transparency. They then fought to halt football until the players caved in to their demands.

    Legal wrangling aside, the owners are not justified in their actions, and legally so far far the courts have ruled against them as well.

  23. redrew says: Apr 28, 2011 11:46 AM

    I will be a Patriots fan long after this group of millionaire players retires. The health of the team is my only worry.

  24. kevinfromphilly says: Apr 28, 2011 11:46 AM

    Most likely, those folks supporting the owners were the front office guys who had nothing better to do.

  25. nahcouldntbethat says: Apr 28, 2011 11:46 AM

    Still voting neither and I still think that theo nly negotiations that will get things solved at this point are the ones that need to happen between Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Woody Johnson, Jim Irsay, Mike Brown and Mark Murphy.

    NFL football is being played in a lot of places that cannot financially compete with the huge markets in an unfettered world and unless the owners get their act together on revenue sharing that’s where we’re headed.

    There’s not enough money to take from the players to make up this difference in the world we’re headed into. The owners need to get on the same page and it needs to be a page that recognizes the rule of law. Then they can effectively negotiate with the players for an agreement that everybody can live with.

    Unfortunately there are a few places where NFl football is being played now where no agreement is likely to resolve the issues, and at least one place where it is not played where it should be.

  26. cappa662 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:47 AM

    Before it was neither, now I support the players because it seems like they are actually trying to end the lockout.

  27. chapnastier says: Apr 28, 2011 11:50 AM

    Its actually take three, but who is counting

  28. TurdSandwich says: Apr 28, 2011 11:52 AM

    I voted neither, but dang.. how does 35% side with the players here?

  29. supashug says: Apr 28, 2011 11:56 AM

    the fans

  30. capslockkey says: Apr 28, 2011 11:58 AM

    Right now, neither. I’ve swung away some from owners to players due to recent events in getting the lockout squashed which means at least we get football, but if it creates a bad long term future for the league or bastardizes the game by forcing MLB like rule changes, then I will probably begrudge the players forever.

  31. bigtrav425 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:58 AM

    i side with the Owners….bottom line

  32. eagleswin says: Apr 28, 2011 11:59 AM

    Joe Haden is still wrong. What a shocker. Maybe he should huddle with Chester Pitts and make another brilliant statement.

  33. billinva says: Apr 28, 2011 12:00 PM

    I still say neither.

    Neither side is doing anything to grease the wheels.

    The owners don’t want the league year to start because it could potentially give the players a way to sue for violating anti-trust laws.

    All the players have to do is to agree to stick to last years CBA rules for this season so they can’t start the damn league year!

  34. bpfpft says: Apr 28, 2011 12:00 PM

    If you run the same poll you ran days ago people think you’re looking for a different answer and will invariably choose the players this time.

  35. jamaltimore says: Apr 28, 2011 12:04 PM

    Start the league and make their own rules.

    No minimum salary, old contracts negotiated under the old CBA do not apply. Hourly rate is 30 bucks an hour so come on back fellas as quickly as possible!

    I’m sure all of this is illegal for some reason but I would love for that to happen. Teams are free to operate any way they want just like in the free market!

  36. 3yrsnfl says: Apr 28, 2011 12:08 PM

    The people who are for the owners are at work right now. The people for the players are home on their computers cause they got no jobs. Just like the players.

  37. stephen02120 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:10 PM

    A similar poll on ESPN a few days ago saw 75% of the people backing the players. The support of the owners on this site is…curious.

  38. clintonportisheadd says: Apr 28, 2011 12:10 PM

    Nothing like a little “We don’t have to obey the judicial system” attitude to remind folks about the arrogance of the owners.

    That is sure to spike the numbers toward the players…

  39. threegriffons says: Apr 28, 2011 12:20 PM

    I see the owners shills are still hard at work

  40. dexterismyhero says: Apr 28, 2011 12:26 PM

    I support the FANS!

    Put the owners and players in a big sandbox…..that was used by a couple of dozen cats and see who can find the biggest turd…

  41. wydok says: Apr 28, 2011 12:28 PM

    I just want football. I don’t care how it’s done.

  42. dontlikecravens says: Apr 28, 2011 12:29 PM

    Mike,
    Reiterating my choice is irrelevant here (I voted for neither). However, mentioning only one side (what percentage voted for the players) is an unfair way of presenting the results of your poll. Lumping the neithers in with the owners gives the appearance of either bias on your side or an incorrect vote of support for the owners. I appreciate the poll but please add a few keystrokes and mention the percentage of all three sides in the interest of true perspective.

  43. geo1113 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:30 PM

    @threegriffons,

    Can we stop with the owners shills . Anyone who says players shills, you stop too.

    Sheesh, what we just need is someone with the balls to say hey guys, you are going to agree oon a mediator who will make a binding decision as to how much info the owners need to give to the players. Owners, if you don’t agree, you will honor the old contract. Players, if you don’t agree, you will accept the owners last offer.

  44. madlithuanian says: Apr 28, 2011 12:30 PM

    So I guess I support the owers…but really I support the league as a whole.

    If this legal battle turns the NFL into MLB, my interest in the sport will fall from ridiculously into it to a mere passing interest. The way the NFL is set up with the salary cap, draft, etc (and yeah, the rookie pay scale should be fixed…), it makes everything as good as possible for competitive balance.

    Please don’t f*&% with what’s already great…I want my “pleasant distraction” as it is pretty much is. Otherwise, it’ll cease to be pleasant.

  45. clownburger says: Apr 28, 2011 12:33 PM

    I support a SALARY CAP & THE DRAFT & A ROOKIE WAGE SCALE!

    Therefore I support the owners.

  46. bronco1st says: Apr 28, 2011 12:34 PM

    Asked about their #1 draft pick, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson stated from his jail cell, “Who cares? Six guys have already asked me to be their Sugar Daddy…MOMMY!

  47. dcviking says: Apr 28, 2011 12:39 PM

    Will somebody (preferably with legal backgound) explain to me how the league should begin it’s new year?

    The response “just use last years rules” with free agent restrictions, roster sizes, etc. would seem to be frought with anitrust issues.

    However, the league can’t work with different teams operating with different guidelines. (Spare me the owners-brought-this-on-themselves stuff — I’m not debating that).

    What I want to know is how the league can move forward in a way which prevents the players from bringing further legal action against the teams.

    I truly hope they figure out a way, and that the players have to move as independent entities — no more NFLPA, just an NFLTA.

  48. cscfriarbob says: Apr 28, 2011 12:41 PM

    There are a huge number of people who do support the players but who haven’t been coming by out of boredom and/or disgust with the situation. Now they are coming back out of the woodwork and we are back to reality… about 33% of the people who really do support the players, about 33% of those who really do support the owners, and about 30% who support neither.

    And then there are the annoying 3-4% who just come here to hurl epithets and name-calling crap at whomever looks like they might be winning (or losing, in some cases) the current round of the arguments.

  49. radrhatr says: Apr 28, 2011 12:43 PM

    Doesn’t everyone know that lawyers keep asking the same question until they get the results they desire.

    Lawyer 1: “Sir, do you support the owners?”
    Witness: “Yes”
    Lawyer 1: “Sir, do you want the players to play football?”
    Witness: “Yes”
    Lawyer 1: “So, let me get this straight. You support the players?”
    Witness: “I support the players…………play…….(the lawyer cuts off the witness)”
    Lawyer 1: “That’s ll, sir”
    Lawyer 2: “I object”
    Lawyer 1: “let me rephrase the question”

  50. metaleffect85 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:46 PM

    People who support the owners are really doing good at showing off how smart they are. Pathetic.

  51. metaleffect85 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:51 PM

    So many worthless opinions on here. I love the jealousy, which is the only reason people support the owners. Keyboard warriors keep up the good work.

  52. jjay9 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:56 PM

    I support the owners. I want to be able to watch football in 10 years. This group of players will be gone. I think they are being short-sighted with this. Same with the fans who can only comment by saying “give me football now.” Would you take football now if it meant that there were no draft or way to make sure the teams were part of a balanced system? NFL should not end up like baseball.

    Look at how Premeir League Football works with no draft. Same teams at the top, same teams keep falling to relegation. no chance to outspend the top teams.

    NFL and NFLPA need to compromise and do what is right for football……Long term solutions.

  53. CKL says: Apr 28, 2011 1:01 PM

    irisht53 says: Apr 28, 2011 11:34 AM

    I still support the owners, however I think they’re making a bad situation worse by turning players away that come in to work out.

    The easy(-ish) solution in my mind would be to start the league year, implement 2010 rules as starting point (the courts would have to agree there’s nothing wrong with starting there). If the players then want to fight the rules one-by-one (including RFAs, draft, etc) they can, but in the mean time players could be traded, cut and UFAs under 2010 rules would be able to sign.
    _________________________________
    Ryan Clark was on First Take this morning and he said that the players were willing to play under any rules the owners put out there. If that is true AND they would hold the owners harmless from anti-trust violations while that happened (I too think they should just use 2010 rules) I would throw more of my support behind the players (right now I think both sides have issues they are right and wrong on). Reason being that if the players would do that it would prove 100% that they DO “just want to play”. by their ACTIONS…not just their words.

  54. oldbyrd says: Apr 28, 2011 1:05 PM

    In the near furure this won’t be an issue. The Unions are loosing support in droves. Down 20% in the last few years. This country will never support communism. Wonder what little D and Trumka will do for a job. Gooooood news for them, McDonalds plans to hire 9000 new people.

  55. nbcwantsitsmoneyback says: Apr 28, 2011 1:10 PM

    I love football as much as anybody,(probably more) but I am willing to sacrifice this season if helps the long term health of the game. If for the sake of getting this year started it means saying goodbye to the draft, rfa’s, franchise tags, salary caps etc.. then I would rather not see football happen this year..!

  56. stixzidinia says: Apr 28, 2011 1:14 PM

    Anybody capable of rational thought would choose “the players” or “neither”. As for everybody else…..looks we know who the Fox News viewers are in here with their mindless anti-Union drivel.

  57. dublinpacker says: Apr 28, 2011 1:17 PM

    Are all of these people unemployable if there is no football? I just don’t understand being able to sue a business because you think you are not being paid enough. How many people on here get a pension after 3 or 4 years of service? How many veterans get a pension after 3 or 4 years of service. How many NFL players go home without any arms or legs? I am sick of these whinny players and their lawyers.

  58. freedomispopular says: Apr 28, 2011 1:19 PM

    You need different polling software. I just voted 5 times.

  59. chapnastier says: Apr 28, 2011 1:27 PM

    metaleffect85 says: Apr 28, 2011 12:46 PM

    People who support the owners are really doing good at showing off how smart they are. Pathetic.
    —————————————————–

    People who support the players are really doing good at showing off how smart they are. Pathetic.

  60. tednancy says: Apr 28, 2011 1:31 PM

    Isn’t it interesting how the pro-owner posts are generally substantive and make attempts at persuasion, while the pro-player comments are (generally) ad hominem.

    When one side in a dispute is willing to put its cards on the table and the other side dissembles and plays games, it’s easy to see who is worthy of support.

    If the players want to attack the NFL draft and salary cap, then the NFL should and will seek any remedy it can to preserve itself, including replacement players.

    And at this moment, that is still a possibility.

    It worked in ’87, and if need be, we’ll do it again. Our game comes first.

  61. Deb says: Apr 28, 2011 1:36 PM

    @CKL …

    Good info, thanks. I’ve never believed players want to restructure the NFL (no matter what Kessler wants). They simply want to end the lockout and force owners to negotiate in good faith–which they weren’t doing no matter what some fans choose to believe (although I agree with you that both sides need to compromise).

    And those who keep woe-is-me’ing about the Armageddon scenario should stop wringing their hands and start demanding the owners give up this fight. That scenario only plays out if the owners stubbornly insist on continuing this litigation course. If they stop now and reach a new CBA, we can return to business as usual with the draft and antitrust exemptions intact. However, for those antiunion types, the antitrust exemptions will remain in effect only if the union recertifies. This time, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

  62. andyreidisfat says: Apr 28, 2011 1:53 PM

    First the question is who do you support in THIS situation, not why do you support a team.

    Second how can anyone support the owners ?? This country is sooooooo retarded. The players were happy two years ago to sign a deal that extended the former CBA. The owners are the greedy bastards who needed more of the pie for them selves. Had the owners approached this smartly they could have traded Beneifits for retired players for rookie pay scale and all would be well. But no. The owners wanted more. They wanted to shrink the players share under the guise of not having enough money ……. really …….. you mean a football team/ license to print money isn’t enough??? Not to mention the fact some of the lead cheerleaders on the owners side are also the richest owners …. Jerry Jones ring a bell ???

    Lets all look at the facts and not our narrow view of how things work. I also support the COLORS but i rea;ize that players AND owners come and go. And in this situation the owners stopped football not the players.

    As for the people who think the players “are attacking the draft and salary cap” this is all just politics you fools. The vet players want no part of having rookies to compete with in free agency, Now the salary cap thats a different story they may want to phase that out but lets be realistic about the cap, how many teams have won a superbowl while even coming close to that cap number ??? I haven’t done the research but i know the PAts and Steelers dont come close so is that a really big deal ???

  63. mick730 says: Apr 28, 2011 1:57 PM

    I’m a Packer fan. I know that the Packers were not faring well under the last CBA. Their profits dropped from over 35.8 million in 2006 to 5.2 million in 2010. I’m not sure why other teams in the NFL would not be in the same situation. In fact, I’m not sure why many would not be in a worse situation. Mark Murphy told us two years ago that the current situation was unsustainable for the Packers. That’s my concern. No, I do not like the way Goodell has conducted business in terms of wanting the NFL to go international, nor do I like the idea of 18 games, nor do I like him constantly wanting to put his face in front of the cameras. But I want the Packers and the NFL to survive as they are; no 18 game season, no international teams. But I want a draft. I want free agency to remain as it is. I do not want any new franchises added to the league.

    That’s it. I want any new CBA to allow the Packers to get back to the financial situation they were in before 2006. Under the old setup, with the players taking 56.9 percent of every new revenue dollar, there was no way the Packers could work their way back.

    I am curious about some things I’ve seen posted here over the past few weeks.

    1. In March and April, there really isn’t football per se. So, why are some people so agitated about football this time of year? The posts,’give me back my damn football’, seem a little bit over the top. Yes, there is the draft, and a small to fair amount of free agency, but nothing that would normally occupy a lot of the typical fan’s time at this time of year.

    2. A lot of the pro player posts are incredibly immature and boorish. I find it hard to believe that it is just support for 1800 or so players in this instance that creates this kind of fervor. After all, none of these 1800 or so guys is under any kind of financial hardship. We are’t talking about followers of Mother Theresa, so what gives? THe league minimum in the NFL is almost ten times the average pay in America, so given the country’s economic condition, the real financial hardship of millions of people in the country, why this uproar over the pay of very well paid football players?

    Is the NFL player/owner thing a substitute for labor union frustration in the rest of society? Is the frustration with organized labor and its supporters at its catering position in American society being transferred to the NFL situation? I’m curious. There just seems to be an awful lot of vitriol coming from the pro player side. I can’t imagine why this vitriol would be produced simply from looking at the NFL players. It has to be the whole labor union collapse thing that drives it. For example, fewer than 7% of private industry’s work force is now unionized. Most union members are government employees, and as we’ve seen over the past few years, they are now coming over increasing scrutiny. Even in Massachussetts, the democrat state government has voted to curtail state unions.

    3. I think there is also a racial element involved in a number of posts I’ve seen. Is it that the players are overwhelmingly black and the owners are all white driving a lot of anger on the part of some of the player posters here?

    Maybe some of the pro player posters can comment. I would be curious to see their responses.

  64. chuckd2323 says: Apr 28, 2011 2:00 PM

    Compareing NFL football to a kids game is a joke. Also compareing it to your job is funny. How many people pay to watch you work? How many of your careers out there average 4.5 years? I agree they both make alot of money and billionaires fighting with millionaires. That being said the players dont want rasies there happy with what they have its the owners who want more. How many of the 32 owners or franchises are working in the red ( meaning loseing money) ? None!!!!!! And to the joksters who wanna compare professional athletes to what you or I do for liveing, im willing to bet you are not in the 5% of your job skill wise. You know what they are your not so stop compareing what you do and for a living and what they do.

  65. chapnastier says: Apr 28, 2011 2:13 PM

    @ andyreidisfat

    Read Mick’s comment above. He did a great job breaking it down for you.

  66. quiktek says: Apr 28, 2011 2:23 PM

    I’m curious to see if the NFL goes impose a free agency safe from anti-trust. The upside for the players is easy to see. Unlimited contracts.

    The downside is no floor. Rookie minimum is what $310k? Tons of kickers and special team players with a few years on them making at least a half million.

    No reason the league can’t open the rooster limits. And I bet if you offered a non-drafted rookie a $20k signing bonus and a $80k salary he would not turn it down. Then you can cut the vet making $500k.

    Special teams, kickers, punters, long snappers, backups. Start signing cheap labor and then cut the guys you have. New guys won’t be that much of a drop off and you could sign several for each guy cut.

  67. hobartbaker says: Apr 28, 2011 2:35 PM

    Even when they win the players are regarded as losers.

  68. jonscoit says: Apr 28, 2011 3:09 PM

    If you were interested in conducting a poll that would generate useful information you would poll on EACH of the following questions, separately:

    Do you want an 18-game regular season, or should the regular season remain at 16 games?
    Do you believe NFL teams should spend a minimum of 50.1% of their revenues on player salaries, or should they spend less?
    Do you believe retired players should receive 10 years of medical insurance [or care, I don't know what the most accurate description is]?

    Etc. You should poll on each of the substantive issues that have been raised in the negotiations (and I don’t think the NFLPA has seriously proposed the elimination of the draft and the salcap, despite what PFT and Roger Goodell have taken to implying). Then you’d get a better picture about what fans actually think about the structure of the sport.

  69. philipmiller111 says: Apr 28, 2011 3:28 PM

    I think any employee has the right to have their employer open their books so that the employee can get a piece of the action being higher wages, more vacation time, more health benefits and faster retirements with the owners contributing and …..not being responsible for any that goes bad for the employer. Actually, I would not really want to work as long as someone else pays my way.
    Manual Gonzallas

  70. jonscoit says: Apr 28, 2011 3:38 PM

    mick730: perhaps it’s my own bias, but I see the vast majority of pro-owner posts as “incredibly immature and boorish” although I’d add “incapable of using standard English” and “deeply ignorant” as well.

    The owner bias is an interesting amalgam of race and class. Owners are perceived as successful businessmen (white) who have earned their fortunes and therefore their economic and social power. This mirrors the treatment of franchises in the press (including this website), which never investigates (often barely mentions) the intense nepotism that reigns in most NFL organizations, for example. But more to the point, the amount of money each franchise takes in, their gross and net profits, are never reported. Even the salaries of coaches (who, again, are overwhelmingly white) are not reported. What is reported? The salaries of players. But the players’ salaries are misreported. The “news” of players’ salaries are the salaries of a tiny minority of players; and, as human are wont to do, this tiny minority comes to stand in for the majority of players. This tiny minority is, for most fans, infuriating. They make truly huge sums of money, especially compared to our salaries, and these sums appear to inconvenience us; they represent other players the team might have signed but couldn’t afford, jacked-up ticket and concession prices, etc. etc. etc. They represent how different the world of the player is from that of the fan; loyalty through thick and thin, year after year, is the definition of the virtuous fan. But loyalty, for most players, is a one-way street. Owners show none; not to their players, coaches, GMs, fans, stadia, and cities. Art Modell moved the Browns from Cleveland because his feelings were hurt that the team had to wait in line behind the MLB and NBA teams. Alex Spanos refuses to recognize the existence of Kellen Winslow because Winslow sued Spanos over an injury settlement. Malcolm Effing Floyd has worn Winslow’s number since he came into the league.

    Moreover, NFL ownership lasts, for practical purposes, forever. Player careers last, on average slightly more than three years. This average is rather misleading: you have large group of players who play 1-2 years at most, a smaller group of players that get one shot at free agency, and a tiny minority that get more than one shot. Once players reach the NFL they have consciously chosen to forgo other career options (check out the degrees most D-I-A players chose) and focus on football. Indeed, we as fans feel entitled to demand this focus, and complain when players aren’t spending 80 hours a week working out or studying film. Does two years of work at $325,000 (if you make a team two years in a row) really compensate you for other foregone opportunities? For the long-term physical costs of having played a violent sport for 8-10 years (including HS and college)?

    And even if you are fine with this, the real question is, who do you want to end up with the lion’s share of the money generated by that blood and sweat? All the players want is 50% of all revenues. The owners were and are willing to forgo an entire season for this. Are you?

  71. Deb says: Apr 28, 2011 4:02 PM

    @dublinpacker …

    Where on earth did you get the idea that the players have sued the NFL because they’re not being paid enough? If you have absolutely not the first clue what’s been going on throughout this process, what an antitrust suit is, what a lockout is, what a CBA is, who was demanding more money (because it was the owners, not the players), please don’t post. Instead, spend some time reading Mike’s articles since March :roll:

  72. Deb says: Apr 28, 2011 4:05 PM

    And it’s absolutely hilarious that my other post has gotten all those thumbs down. The league can’t maintain the antitrust exemptions you’re all panting for without the NFLPA. You guys can pout until hell freezes, but that’s the way it is. :lol:

  73. thefiesty1 says: Apr 28, 2011 5:23 PM

    Where did all the fans supporting the owners in the last poll? Almost 50% to a third? Gave up on your convictions pretty quick you fair weather fans. Stick it out until the end. That why we’re in this situation now. Send judge Murphy and her liberal views a message.
    The players will own the league if you give up now.

  74. Deb says: Apr 28, 2011 6:52 PM

    @thefiesty1 …

    Um … it’s Judge Nelson, not Judge Murphy ;)

  75. monkeesfan says: Apr 28, 2011 7:08 PM

    The players STILL have not made a credible case for themselves. They went to the courts because their livelihoods were endangered – so if that were the case, why not sign the new CBA and get back to work?

    There simply is no logic to the union position anywhere – nowhere did players get gipped of any real money before (not in the TV loan “slush fund” that was never going to be used if a new CBA had been signed) and they were never going to lose money with a new CBA. The players tricked the owners into signing a bad CBA in 2006; Deb, DeMaurice Smith etc. can deny deny deny until they’re blue in the face and they will never win on facts.

    What Judge Nelson has done is the same mistake Sotomayor made with baseball – Sotomayor “saved” the Yankees’ ability to spend and the union’s ability to inflate player wages while prolonging the game’s dysfunctional economic model by some seven years; the game itself was harmed, not helped, by her. What Nelson is doing is stopping a needed reform of an economic system that is proving to be dysfunctional.

  76. monkeesfan says: Apr 28, 2011 7:14 PM

    jonscoit -

    1 – YES to 18-game schedule. It means more football, generates more revenue for the game, and will help competition.
    2 – The teams should pay players what they and the game realistically can handle as a percentage of revenue; if they’re not going to get help on stadium upkeep etc. then it has to change.
    3 – Players need to better handle their finances with regard to retirement. League and team pensions can only go so far.

    You misrepresent what the players – actually DeMaurice Smith – want. They want to punish the owners; if they wanted a legitimate share of revenues they’d shut up, sign the new CBA, and get back to work, because the reality of sports economics dictates that they will get the legitimate share of revenue.

  77. bsandcs says: Apr 28, 2011 7:45 PM

    @celtks

    Owners did NOT ask players to take a pay cut. In fact player salaries would not be reduced at all, they would still be increasing just not at the same rate at which they currently increase, which the owners contend is way too fast. The salary is not being reduced, the rate of growth is. that is a BIG difference from a pay cut.

  78. dublinpacker says: Apr 29, 2011 9:32 AM

    @Deb
    I love clueless people that have no idea how a business operates!!!!!!!!! If you want to act like you are a partner then you add to the pot, you just don’t collect. No matter how you look at this, it is a game, and no one is making these players play.

Leave a Reply

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