Owners have the edge. Players have much more to lose. When they start not getting checks and then bills and what not start piling up, they'll give in
NFLPA decertifying is a clear sign that the players are going to take this to court (the union can't take the owners to court as long as it's certified). It's about the only leverage the players have at this point - they know that the owners can outlast the players by a long shot in a work stoppage, and the players know that the owners know that they know (which is why I found it ironic that the owners filed grievance against the NFLPA for not not cooperating when it's the owners that hold all the power and have no incentive to cooperate).
Anyway, the last thing the owners want is for this thing to go to court. The owners could go from being in a position to winning everything to quickly losing everything if the judges rule against them. By decertifying they are trying to some leverage back - worst case scenario they rule 100% in favor with the owners, who have all the power and weren't going to concede to the players anyway. Best case scenario (for them) is the judge rules against the owners and the union wins this. Likely scenario is, as I said, the union now has leverage against the owners and a "fair" deal can get done.
With the players taking this to court, I see football being played this year.
I don't understand this thing.
The owners should just "sorry, this is the way it is. We pay you millions to play a game. A large percentage of you don't even have a college degree, good luck finding a job that is going to pay you even close to what we pay you."
Owners also invest hunreds of millions of there own dollars into these franchises and they should make a lot more than the players do. No different that some guy buying a factory and hiring a bunch of people to make his product, the owner is going to make more than the employees. If the employees get mad at demand more money, the employees are replaced.
Wonder if this will help the Big 12 at all in negotiations for the new TV contract?
If NFL is on strike, you'd think some networks would have some extra money to spend???
Meanwhile, the owners would try to milk a few extra tens of millions of dollars from the players that DO risk quality of life and permanent damage to limbs because the owners don't want to fork over money to pay for permanent health insurance (especially post-retirement) among other things, and on top of that want to increase the regular season by two games, further risking devastating injury to their players.
Look, I'm normally on a neutral side of this - I think it's absolutely ridiculous that grown men can't figure out how to fairly distribute hundreds of millions to billions of dollars without complaints. Unfortunately that's the world we live in. That being said, I can understand the players' complaint about how a franchise will make hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in a year, but yet "can't afford" to permanently pay for health insurance for players after they retire, especially if those players sustained severe and permanent damage to their knees making those hundreds of millions of dollars for their owners. Not to mention the owners decided to prematurely end the existing CBA, albeit at a point where contractually they could do so.
Sounds like they've agreed to a 24 hour extension of the cba.
NFL.com news: League, players' union agree to 24-hour extension in labor talks
also, I'm changing the thread title, because it's not a strike, it's a lockout. There will be no strike.