NFL: Why i hate the Players Union...(LONG)

[Yellow Snow]

Go ahead and play one game for $250,000. And when you suffer a severe concussion, or a broken leg, or worse then you can use that to pay your medical bills.

And years ago, Chicago Bulls owner thought he didn't need Jordan, Pippen or any of his stars as long as he put a team out there. He was wrong on that.

By playing for $250,000 and risking injury i am accepting that prospective outcome. I weigh the risk verses the reward and decide i'd do it. Maybe you wouldn't, that's ok too.

NOBODY is forcing ANYBODY to play in the league. Any bench player out there can quit at any time if they feel it isn't worth it...

And yea, the Bulls owner was wrong. He payed the price too. That is the risk he took. You can't prevent stupidity through collective bargaining agreements.

 

[2Xclone]

If the player's union decertified how can they then tell college players to not attend the draft. If they are telling college players not to attend the draft then they haven't really decertified. They shouldn't be acting as a union if it doesn't exist; to say it is the NFLPA telling college athletes not to attend, to me, says the NFLPA isn't being completely honest either. They say they are no more so they don't have to bargain and then act like a union to strong arm college athletes. I hope both sides lose in this.

 

[3TrueFans]

Honestly, no I don't think millions would tune in to see that. That's not the point.

The point is that he can try if he wants to. Will it succeed? No, but that's his decision to make. HE OWNS the team! If he wants to drive it into the turf... go for it.

It comes down to this. The players perform a service for a paycheck. They have a union that stipulates the minimum's, certain other benefits, etc. Fine. That said, the OWNERS have the right to reject the union's proposals or requests if they don't like them. Fine. Why is that greedy?

The size of the overall pie doesn't change the principal of the argument. Lets say i have 50 dollars in my pocket and you have none. I give you ten. Am I greedy for not giving you 25 or are you greedy for wanting more than 10? What is it?

So then the league isn't the marketable product, if it wouldn't succeed without the players, it must be the players that are indeed the marketable product.

 

[Cyrocks]

Honestly, no I don't think millions would tune in to see that. That's not the point.

The point is that he can try if he wants to. Will it succeed? No, but that's his decision to make. HE OWNS the team! If he wants to drive it into the turf... go for it.

It comes down to this. The players perform a service for a paycheck. They have a union that stipulates the minimum's, certain other benefits, etc. Fine. That said, the OWNERS have the right to reject the union's proposals or requests if they don't like them. Fine. Why is that greedy?

The size of the overall pie doesn't change the principal of the argument. Lets say i have 50 dollars in my pocket and you have none. I give you ten. Am I greedy for not giving you 25 or are you greedy for wanting more than 10? What is it?

So then the league isn't the marketable product, if it wouldn't succeed without the players, it must be the players that are indeed the marketable product.

Oh...my...gawd...3TrueFans. You just blew my mind! :shocked:

 

[ISUKoolaid]

They have decertified as a union. They still exist as a trade organization.

 

[Mr Janny]

If the player's union decertified how can they then tell college players to not attend the draft. If they are telling college players not to attend the draft then they haven't really decertified. They shouldn't be acting as a union if it doesn't exist; to say it is the NFLPA telling college athletes not to attend, to me, says the NFLPA isn't being completely honest either. They say they are no more so they don't have to bargain and then act like a union to strong arm college athletes. I hope both sides lose in this.

They're not a union anymore, but still are a trade association. That may sound like it's only a technicality, and it is, but legally there is a big difference. Members of a union are not able to file lawsuits using anti-trust laws. Members of a trade association can. That was the whole reason that they decertified.

Now, the NFL will claim that they are still acting like a union and will ask the court to invalidate their decertification as a result, but from what I have hear Judge Doty is not likely to grant this request.

 

[Peter]

Honestly, no I don't think millions would tune in to see that. That's not the point.

The point is that he can try if he wants to. Will it succeed? No, but that's his decision to make. HE OWNS the team! If he wants to drive it into the turf... go for it.

So you are admiting that players MAKE the NFL, not owners. Why then should players have little say in how much money they recieve from this enterprise? Why is it fair that the players bust *** 24/7/365, put butts in the seats, and make the game exciting. Yet its the owners who decide who gets the money.

I'm siding with the working man on this!

 

[3TrueFans]

If the player's union decertified how can they then tell college players to not attend the draft. If they are telling college players not to attend the draft then they haven't really decertified. They shouldn't be acting as a union if it doesn't exist; to say it is the NFLPA telling college athletes not to attend, to me, says the NFLPA isn't being completely honest either. They say they are no more so they don't have to bargain and then act like a union to strong arm college athletes. I hope both sides lose in this.

They are a trade association now I believe, they can't negotiate on behalf of players, but they are still an organization. And I believe they haven't told anyone they can't attend, some sources say they have asked athletes to consider not attending.

 

[Stormin]

Since most owners want the taxpayer to buy them stadiums, I wish that a lockout by the owners would make all players contracts void. Then each city can own their own team and not worry about giving up everything to the owners. **** on the owners and the extortion tactics they use in getting everything given to them. Start a new football league.

There must be a reason the owners won't open up their books.

 

[SC Cy]

The NFL doesn't need Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Arian Foster, Sage Rosenfels, or Bob Sanders. The NFL is a completely different animal than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Fans, for the most part, cheer for the team on the field, not the player. As someone put it (I can't recall who), we as fans cheer for laundry.

I idolized Brett Favre growing up. I loved Don Majkowski before that. Guess what, I am a huge Aaron Rodgers fan. Rodgers goes down and I become a huge Matt Flynn fan. The point is that fans will still cheer for their teams, no matter who is out there.

Would there be a backlash if there were replacement players? Of course. The NFL would recover.

When the USFL started up they started over paying for the star players. Guys like Jim Kelly, Hershel Walker, and Steve Young took the USFL money over the NFL. It didn't matter to the NFL. They always marketed teams, not individuals.

Another twist to this is Fantasy Football. Fantasy Football will still go on, regardless on whether there are replacement players or not. People will still tune in to watch their players play. They'll still pay for NFL Redzone.

 

[tazclone]

Nice one-sided argument here. Let's turn that the other way. Can the owners market the game without the players? Can the owners actually go out there and put their bodies through the punishment that the players do?

The owners are free to try and make money on the game without the players. Wait, they can't. The union has every right to stand up to the owners here.

Most owners don't make money on their football teams. The football teams are just a hobby. If the NFL went away tomorrow, most owners would make money elsewhere as they already have.

The NFL should do more to help the players after their careers are over. Ther eis no doubt about that.

In the end. the NFLPA asking the kids to boycott the draft is ********, cheap, petty, and ridiculous. IT puts those kids in a bad position and they don't deserve it.

In short it make the NFLPA look like childish ********.

 

[tazclone]

If anyone thinks the NFL owners can just lock out the NFL players, bring in the "replacements", and be just "fine" from a financial standpoint, they are sorely mistaken. They sang that song during the last NFL shutdown - had it not been for the players caving in because they just don't have the money to compete with the owners it would have been a complete financial disaster for the owners. The fans didn't show up. Quite simply, they didn't want to watch a bunch of nobodies play really bad football. Nobody's that desperate for football.

The bigger losers are the businesses supported by football. There is a reason taxpayers buils stadiums. It increases revenue to local businesses. The restaurant, bars, hotels, etc are going to be the people hurt the most.

 

[tazclone]

If the player's union decertified how can they then tell college players to not attend the draft. If they are telling college players not to attend the draft then they haven't really decertified. They shouldn't be acting as a union if it doesn't exist; to say it is the NFLPA telling college athletes not to attend, to me, says the NFLPA isn't being completely honest either. They say they are no more so they don't have to bargain and then act like a union to strong arm college athletes. I hope both sides lose in this.

In the end, even if they were a union, they couldn't tell the college players what to do. But they are asking them anyway.

 

[azepp]

The reality is that the players are the NFL. They're the face of the NFL, they're the product that the NFL is selling, and they're the reason the owners make any money at all. The players are professionals and the owners make money off of them.

It's like a law or accounting firm. The brand is valuable because of the skills that the professionals who are employed by the organization possess. However, most law/CPA firms are partnerships meaning that the employees, who hold the keys to the till with their knowledge, are partial owners and get to share in the profits as they see fit.

Unfortunately for the players, the NFL is not structured this way which means they are at the mercy of the owners. The owners have put up cash to buy these teams and have every right to do as they wish with the profits.

In the end, both sides need each other and will figure out a way to make it work.

 

[brett108]

There are no other leagues in the United States. Sounds like a monopoly to me.

Arena football isn't a league? Really....you sir need to check some facts.

 

[3TrueFans]

The NFL doesn't need Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, Arian Foster, Sage Rosenfels, or Bob Sanders. The NFL is a completely different animal than it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Fans, for the most part, cheer for the team on the field, not the player. As someone put it (I can't recall who), we as fans cheer for laundry.

I idolized Brett Favre growing up. I loved Don Majkowski before that. Guess what, I am a huge Aaron Rodgers fan. Rodgers goes down and I become a huge Matt Flynn fan. The point is that fans will still cheer for their teams, no matter who is out there.

Would there be a backlash if there were replacement players? Of course. The NFL would recover.

When the USFL started up they started over paying for the star players. Guys like Jim Kelly, Hershel Walker, and Steve Young took the USFL money over the NFL. It didn't matter to the NFL. They always marketed teams, not individuals.

Another twist to this is Fantasy Football. Fantasy Football will still go on, regardless on whether there are replacement players or not. People will still tune in to watch their players play. They'll still pay for NFL Redzone.

Until the players on the field are putting out a terrible product, then nobody will want to watch.

 

[brett108]

You think millions of people are going to tune in to watch AFL rejects play?

Millions of people tune in to watch college football every Saturday. The AFL is full of those same college kids.

 

[Yellow Snow]

So you are admiting that players MAKE the NFL, not owners. Why then should players have little say in how much money they recieve from this enterprise? Why is it fair that the players bust *** 24/7/365, put butts in the seats, and make the game exciting. Yet its the owners who decide who gets the money.

I'm siding with the working man on this!

Lemme try this another way...

I worked for a company that billed my time out at a certain hourly rate. I knew what that was. They in turn paid me an hourly salary for my billable hours. In short - they made a profit on every hour i worked.

The difference in what they billed and what I was payed is a moot point, because I could choose to accept what they were paying me for my time or not. Just because i'm not talking about millions of dollars in my case, doesn't change the principle. I CHOSE to work there based on my assesment that I was being fairly compensated for my work... NOT based on what the company profited.

The players DO have a say in how much money they receive. They can receive it or not... their decision. Just as I could have taken my skill set and moved on to a different company or pursued a different endeavor entirely.

I'm not saying that the players don't have a right to complain, or don't have the right to want additional benefits, etc. Everybody who has a job wants more. That part is fine. I just don't think that the owners should be obligated to change the compensation package if they don't want to, or deem it reasonable. It's THEIR decision, not the players.

 

[Mr Janny]

Lemme try this another way...

I worked for a company that billed my time out at a certain hourly rate. I knew what that was. They in turn paid me an hourly salary for my billable hours. In short - they made a profit on every hour i worked.

The difference in what they billed and what I was payed is a moot point, because I could choose to accept what they were paying me for my time or not. Just because i'm not talking about millions of dollars in my case, doesn't change the principle. I CHOSE to work there based on my assesment that I was being fairly compensated for my work... NOT based on what the company profited.

The players DO have a say in how much money they receive. They can receive it or not... their decision. Just as I could have taken my skill set and moved on to a different company or pursued a different endeavor entirely.

I'm not saying that the players don't have a right to complain, or don't have the right to want additional benefits, etc. Everybody who has a job wants more. That part is fine. I just don't think that the owners should be obligated to change the compensation package if they don't want to, or deem it reasonable. It's THEIR decision, not the players.

Except for the fact that it's the owners that are asking for the change in the compensation package. They're the ones making the requests to alter the deal that has been in place. They want a different split in the profits. They want the players to work more. The NFLPA has gone on record saying that they are fine with the terms of the current CBA when it comes to revenue splits. They aren't asking a change. The owners are, and when asked to show cause for this request they've refused. Should the union just accept their request blindly? Would that really be in the best interest of the workers they represent? To just take the league's word for it?

 

[3TrueFans]

Millions of people tune in to watch college football every Saturday. The AFL is full of those same college kids.

To watch big schools play, schools that produce a large number of NFL players. I don't think millions are watching teams from the Sun Belt Conference play. When the star QB in the NFL is Justin Allgood or Raymond Philyaw we may see viewership drop a bit.

If the league is forced to use players that weren't even good enough to be backups or practice squad players in the current NFL we'll see how many people are just watching because it's their team.