To say that the players are employees of the owners is not true. While they might get paid like employees, receive healthcare like employees they are the actual product. And while they do not assume any of the risk that the organization does, they risk their livelyhood everyweek when they step out onto the field. This whole issue began because the owners want more revenue from an 18 game season. They want more risk to fall on players so they can make more money. If you are an owner in the NFL and you cannot make money, you are either bad at business, or you are in the wrong market (not enough loyal NFL fans). The players may have agreed to the owners terms, but the owners were too arrogant to open their books and show the entire world how much $$$ they make each year! That was the only initial request from the NFLPA, and it was not met. The NFL and Roger "bad joke" Goodell feel they met the requests, but everyone knows that when you have something to hide and you are very powerful, you keep it hidden, period. If the players knew exactly how much the owner makes, their demands would increase. As they should.
Ted - 13 years ago
Read the column to which you linked, and alas, am unimpressed.
The players are not "partners" in any way, shape, or form. They don't assume any risk that the clubs assume. They are utterly devoid of responsibility of any operating costs the clubs incur. The players do not own shares of the clubs the play for.
In short, the player's are not and have never been, "partners." It's a red herring.
Second, are you suggesting that the owners should be forced to choose between accepting all aspects of the 2006 CBA, or else risk destroying the NFL??
Is the 2006 CBA like the Ten Commandments or something? Is it sacred? Why on earth should we blame the owners for exercising their right to renegotiate the 2006 CBA, as both sides previously agreed?
You are advocating a false choice: either the owners accept the 2006 CBA in perpetuity or else accept blame for the players attempt to destroy the NFL as we know it. Isn't there a third way? Isn't that third was called "collective bargaining?"
Yet the players would have you believe that they had no other choice but to attack the antitrust exemptions in court. Actually, they players would rather fans didn't know that they are going there, and it looks like they're succeeding.
Either way, the decision to opt out of the 2006 CBA was something both sides agreed to in 2006. It was the only reason the owners agreed to the deal in the first place. The fact is, the 2006 CBA was going to expire in 2013 anyway, and you'll never convince anyone who is reasonable that the players would have acted any differently then than they are now.
Just because the owners want a better deal doesn't mean they have to choose between the old deal and the destruction of their business. That's a rather extreme position to take, but it's the position of the players, and apparently, of those who support them.
In summary, the owners wanted to renegotiation the 2006 CBA; the players wanted to gain leverage via decertification and a doomsday lawsuit. Let's not pretend the players had no other choice.
FSUD - 13 years ago
If you side with the owners because "the players want to destroy the game and change everything," you're a simpleton.
The owners are the ones that wanted the change. What those changes are, good or bad, is beside the point.
The players wanted essentially the exact same agreement they've been using for the last several years.
Mike - 13 years ago
The owners should control the game and the money, hence the name owners! As employers they should have the right to hire and fire, and offer a pay scale and rules that suit them. If these pay scales and rules are so egregious then why can they continue to find new employees? If the employee's are not willing to play for what is offered, no one is forcing them. Go get a real job for 50 -60 k a year like everyone else. If you want to play, then play. If not get out and move on and let someone who wants to play do it. If I were an owner, I would consider shutting down all current operations and start a new league, one where I were truely in charge. Thes players are so spoiled and protected they think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Well welcome to the real world where actions have consequences. Piss off the boss and get fired. The NFL team owners should simply fire everyone and start hiring all over again. Here is the offer, take it or leave it. If they cannot find players, they will pay what is required to fill the rosters. If players show up to play for the offered wages then so be it. This had no business in the courts.
kyle - 13 years ago
I understand what you're saying Ted, but I do think it's leverage, nothing more. Trust me the NFL draft isn't going anywhere. Please read the following article, the guy makes reference to this pole, or the one previous and comments.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-8383547
If you don't have the time or patience to read the entire article it's 3 main points are or rather false public perceptions are.
1. Players are the employees and owners are the boss. (They're actually partners)
2. The players have been less willing to negotiate than the owners. (They have been more than willing)
3. Revenues aren't continuing to climb. (They are, A LOT)
Please, please don't listen to Roger Goodell when he says "please help us, the big bad player's union is trying to destroy our game of football", it's all a scare tactic. A desperate act, from a desperate guy, trying to sway public opinion to his side through fear. The lawsuit is just a bargaining ploy , but many of you fail to understand this. Remember the NFL brought all this on themselves. They had a chance to extend the old CBA and allow player's to work under the old agreement, but opted out and then have the nerve to call this a work-stoppage. They forced this hand from the union by not opening their books and disclosing their financial records....a pretty clear sign that the owner's aren't as impoverished as you think. Don't let Roger Goodell insult your intelligence.
Please get Serious - 13 years ago
While I agree that decertifying the NFLPA is a tactic (yes leverage) it is in effect bringing us closer to an NFL season. No one truly belives that a CBA won't be agreed upon moving forward if the season does come to fruition. Players want to be treated fairly and since they have not been, they are pushing back. It is called asking for more knowing you will settle for less. To assert that the players are wrong here is absurd, they ARE the NFL. Owners don't suit up, they run a business and make a ton of money. If the owners were fully transparrent I would be more understanding of their POV (because we would know just how RICH they are gettign each year), but they are self serving and extremely greedy. I am glad to hear that you support those type of people.
Dave - 13 years ago
This is all pointless. Obviously people are not going to change their CAPITALISTIC ways. I guess the players should just take a $1 billion paycut just because the owners would rather have it. Makes sense I guess The owners only make 50-150mil per year. How could that possibly fill their coffers?
God is a not real - 13 years ago
God, I think you need to come down off your pedestal. Your comments are not factual and they speak utter foolishness
Ted - 13 years ago
Please get Serious: the lawsuit filed by the (s0 called) decertified union Class expressly attacks all future drafts (notwithstanding the 2011 draft which was contemplated by the 2006 CBA) as well as the salary cap, testing for performance enhancing drugs - in short, anything that could be constituted as a restriction of trade.
Without a CBA, there are no rules, and the NFL would, as a result, be forced to operate like, for example, MLB.
THAT'S what the union (or trade association as if there really is any difference) is seeking.
Maybe it's just leverage - but if it is, than how can decertification be anything BUT a sham?
So in the end, the class formerly known as the NFLPA is either attacking the competitive foundation of the NFL, or else it is merely seeking leverage through the courts, thereby proving decertification is a sham.
Either way, the owners are right in this instance, and the players are wrong.
I guess I shouldn't use God as a comment header - 13 years ago
Dave - will you please take your class warfare and marxist dialectic and shove it?
This is about football, not your personal crusade for "social justice." I am a Democrat, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. I support the owners because they are, in this case, positioned to protect the game I love. The players? Not so much.
Stop using the lockout as a stump for your Leninist babbling and start talking - and thinking - like a fan. Otherwise, your opinion is stupendously irrelevant.
kyle - 13 years ago
Please Get Serious you couldn't be more right.
The owners opted out of the deal because they wanted more money and an 18 game schedule, players saying they want no salary cap, no draft, and a free market system, where players coming into the league are allowed to sign where they want is simply a response to that. If you want this, we want that. Trust me, it won't happen. The players want to meet in the middle, the owners don't.
Please get Serious - 13 years ago
Ted, please enlighten us as to how the courts will ruin football? The G Beck comment is an example of some one who makes countless statements that lack any factual basis. It is sad but facts and truth in this country are becoming a scarce commoditiy. Sorry to ruffle your democratic feathers, but most FANS support the players. period. good try though!
Please get Serious - 13 years ago
God - just to keep you up to speed with develoopments, there is no longer a players union. So, your liberal union comments are moot. Also, how full of yourself could you be to call yourself god. This has to do with greed and its quite clear you are pro greed. Way to go! You ever even play the game? From your comments i would say that you are conservative (for sure), and probably lacked the blue collar toughness to play a sport like football. I would also say you are likely..................well I will just say that most players are black and nearly all owners are white.
Ted - 13 years ago
I am a Democrat, and I DO NOT support the players' attempt to ruin the NFL through the courts.
Those of you who care more about politics and your ideology can suck it. Most of us who support the owners do so because we are fans of the NFL. I watch football to get away from the usual politics - but the union and its leaders want to take a political sledgehammer to the national pastime and I cannot support it.
Those of you who want to inject your idiotic political opinions into this debate aren't true fans at all. And calling out those who disagree with you as a bunch of Glenn Beck fans makes you look like the biggest asses in world history.
Dave - 13 years ago
God, How can anyone take you seriously when you name yourself God. I wouldn't say misinformed people are pro-player, and I am surely not misinformed. I also was never in a union so I am not biased for or against them. However I am biased about signing over all the money to the richest people in the world. 1 percent of the human population owns 99 percent of everything. Thats not the standard I want to live my entire life.
So for all you pro owner middle class sheep. Keep signing away your rights so the haves can have more than you
Please Get Serious - 13 years ago
People like this are a joke. Making factless statements - must be a fox news watcher:
"I'm pro owner because if the players won this- sports as we know it would never be the same. Things such as the draft would be gone and you would have a system much like baseball- where a handful of teams dominate. "
Maybe that was just G Beck weighing in?
kyle - 13 years ago
First of all, Mike you can't "slap the sh*t out these players", they're bigger than you and second, please read something and form an actual INTELLIGENT opinion. I don't even know how to respond to that, sensing some underlying racism too.
God - 13 years ago
Judging from the pro-union comments, it's pretty clear that the dumber you are, the more likely you are to support the players; the more left you lean, the more pro-union you'll be; the more uninformed about this issue, the more unabashedly pro-player you are.
The pro-union crowd is breathtakingly stupid. What a bunch of stupid asses!
Unbelievable . . .
Mike - 13 years ago
I wish I could slap the sh*t out of all these players! They are destroying the game that better men built for their whinney butts. It's sad that they are that selfish.
Please get serious - 13 years ago
Why would anyone support the greed of the owners? The players ARE the NFL, they are the product and if you are a fan I don't I don't see why you would support the greed that may destroy the best sport in the world. Someone noted that if the players win, the product some how dimishes. How? The owners are makign a lot more $$ than we might think (hence very little transaparancy) so why supoport greed. Greed is ruining the country in so many other ways. Unless of course you are agreddy sc$mbag your self.
cristina - 13 years ago
Clearly the majority if you lack the basic skills to watch a news broadcast... anyone who cannot see how ridiculous the owners are being whining over a 9 billion dollar pot when they are already over paid as it is, is a complete idiot... the OWNERS started this battle and cant handle the fact that they are losing.. its that simple, watch a news broadcast
kyle - 13 years ago
I don't know how anyone can side with the owners. I used to like Roger Goodell, but he is a snake. He uses words like "work stoppage", but its not a work stoppage, Roger, it's a lockout. He says players are attacking the game of football and want a free market system, but that's not the case at all. The players were fine with the way the league was run, it was the OWNERS who opted out of the current agreement because they wanted more money, not the players. In every other major sport, baseball, basketball, hockey, the players make at least 50% of the total revenue, however in football, the owners think the players deserve 38%.....HOW IS THAT RIGHT?? You play in the most popular sport in America and arguably the most physically demanding, but yet we want to pay you less money. J.P said it right, it is pure and utter greed and if you side with the owners you clearly have no idea of what's going on and have been listening to the spin-doctor Roger Goodell instead of looking at the facts. If anything the players should be getting more money, not in terms of salary, but in benefits and post retirement compensation packages. And please don't present the argument, "Doctors only make 500k a year, so why does Peyton Manning deserve $15 million a year?" Yes, the AVERAGE doctor does make that, but so does the AVERAGE pro football player. What do you think the highest paid doctors, specialists, and surgeons make? Probably a few million too, so if you're going to make a comparison make sure you keep it all in perspective. The only changes necessary in football are that you need a salary cap to keep an even playing field so that high market teams don't dominate the way MLB franchises do. This makes it hard to truly create a dynasty and teams like the Patriots and Steelers (hate them both, but you gotta respect them) are rewarded to spending their money wisely in free agency and draft well. The one change that NEEDS to be made it a rookie wage scale. You can't shovel out millions in guaranteed money to guys who haven't set foot on the field. Think of it this way.....if i go into an organization with the potential to be a your next CEO or on the board of directors (one of your best players) are you going to start out by paying me upper to middle management money....HELL NO. Top picks should be making a couple million, sure, even get a million or two in signing bonus, but not the ridiculous amounts we see today. Furthermore these deals should only be 3-4 years, not just to protect against your Jamarcus Russell's and Vernon Gholston's, but also your Chris Johnson's and Darelle Revis' as well, guys who establish themselves in their first few seasons as top tier guys, that way you don't have to worry about a hold out in camp. You get your rookie deal and if you prove yourself then you get your long term contract and make your DESERVED money. Also you wouldn't have to worry too much about guys leaving for free agency because they've build a rapport with the players and coaches around you and so much of the NFL is about schemes so this team obviously knows how to use you, plus who wants to learn a whole other playbook and there's also the loyalty factor.
Sorry it was a long read and possible spelling and grammar errors, was a quick type, but I believe football is the greatest sport we have in this country. Whatever your opinions are hopefully we can get back to football and all enjoy the 2011 season. Enjoy the draft everyone. GO 49ers!!!
dave - 13 years ago
Ted, I am assuming you are the same person who always claims FOX news isn't a Republican news network. Just because someone's name isn't on PFT doesn't mean that "said" person can't influence PFT.
Been a member of PFT for 5 years, and ever since this site was BOUGHT by NBC it has had its agendas. Whether they are league rules, player rules, or anything player related this site has leaned towards the owners greater good. I'm sorry that the average fans can't catch on.
The problem with florio is that he is transparently pro-florio. He has openly complained about how the lockout will hurt his sites' "traffic" (read money) and has been anti-lockout ever since it started. If you think he's pro owners then you aren't paying attention. I wish we could get the football news without having it filtered by this self-serving blowhard.
villa goo - 13 years ago
There actually is an affiliation between the league and PFT...the NFL is an official sponsor of the site. That being said - there is a clear liberal/puppy dog court bias by Florio for the players.
Ted - 13 years ago
Dave, Michael and the rest of the peanut gallery: if you actually believe that PFT is owned by the NFL, or is financed by the NFL or whatever, you are seriously misinformed and/or seriously handicapped.
Apparently, Special Olympians care about the lockout too.
dave - 13 years ago
Of course PFT is pro owner. Why would the owners pay for the website if they were not going to use it as a propaganda platform. PFT has been totally biased against the players for months, and it is even more prevalent when these stupid polls are cast. This is the only site I have seen that is so lopsided for the owners
If anybody truly believes the owners are losing money or are in danger of losing money, than you are the sheep
J.P. - 13 years ago
If you're on the owners side, you're not paying attention to what's going on. And don't give me the line "I'd play for free" because you wouldn't unless you mean a weekend flag football league. The owners chose to start this battle. The owners are greedy bastards who are always looking to take money from someone whether its the players or cities/states (us) for their stadiums.
villa goo - 13 years ago
Forgot the 8th circuit reads Florio's polls to make decisions. Although that might be the best thing these liberal run chambers could do in certain situations. It is clear as night and day that ever since the ruling came down Florio has been pushing propaganda for the player's side. If you read these articles and think otherwise, well maybe you shouldn't be reading. Anything.
Michael - 13 years ago
of course he is Ted think about it the court rules in the players favor so now he wants to do a fake poll again to try to sway the eighth circuit; it is propoganda Ted
Ted - 13 years ago
Michael, are you on drugs or something? 89% pro-player? You think Florio is pro-owner?
Can I get some of that?
Michael - 13 years ago
anyone who does not know what a knagoroo court is it is a court that even if someone is inncoent they find them guilty even if they know it is not true or vice versa. It is like a court that compares to a referee being paid off to help a certain team win or a team that intentionally loses a game to get paid off by the mob or something like that. Basically an unfair system kind of like what they do in Iran or countries like that.
Michael - 13 years ago
You and I and everyone else knows your poll is fake just like the polls were before fox news came into existence. You have been on the owners side with everything and obviously they lose in court with their biased arguments you are like a kangoroo court yourself when it comes to your opinions on this dispute they are not objective and are not real if you actually did a poll and posted the real answers the results would be like 89 percent players and you know it. That is the reason I do not join your site to make posts except when you have them open to everyone because you guys are disingenuous and on the owners payroll or at least you want to get more access to information through them so you spread their propoganda as being fair and true. Sorry you guys have great information and I love to use your site as a source but other than that you guys are just like the crazy lawyers on the owners side who steal their money by not being honest with them or maybe they are just waiting to get the right judge so they can have a kangoroo court like your kangoroo court of opinion you have going on hear on the labor dispute on your site. Any other network that does a poll is different then yours if they are not lying.
villa goo - 13 years ago
It should change even more in the owner's favor now. People don't realize that the players took this to court, and that is going to result in court fiasco well into training camp when the two sides could be sitting down and working out a deal to kick the season off on time. Why in the hell would anyone want government controlling the NFL labor process? They have continuously shammed up anything and everything that should be left to private business.
Tom - 13 years ago
seams the owners shills are still hard at work
Steve - 13 years ago
I'm pro owner because if the players won this- sports as we know it would never be the same. Things such as the draft would be gone and you would have a system much like baseball- where a handful of teams dominate.
Ted - 13 years ago
Ben, the court has not "provided a resolution." The owners are not resisting anything other than being sued for antitrust violations by the union, because there are no collective bargaining rules in place.
Your logic is exactly why some folks will mistakenly support the players. You think Judge Nelson fixed everything when, in reality, she just opened the door for an all-out assault on the NFL as we know it.
Ben - 13 years ago
I'm really just tired of the dispute, I want football to happen. I didn't care who won, but now that the court has provided a resolution, the fact that the owners are resisting it makes me madder at them.
Fuck Florio - 13 years ago
My names says it all.
Chris - 13 years ago
Good point about the necessity (or lack thereof) to re-poll. Why should I shift my support from the owners to the players just because a liberal judge sided with labor against management?
stats - 13 years ago
Sampling bias, Florio. What type of person reads a lawyer's blog about the NFL? Probably not the average fan! Your poll will be skewed in favor of owners.
Mike - 13 years ago
Florio will keep this up until his labor lawyer point of view wins.! he's been trying to get public opinion(unsucsess fully for weeks) on the players side and he wont give up until he does...!
Ted - 13 years ago
I agree Ron. 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. This poll is crap, and the people who swung to the union side clearly never bothered to understand the issues at stake in the first place.
Idiots.
steve - 13 years ago
Just keep putting it out there until you get the resoults you want.
Your a joke
LKW - 13 years ago
Winning is sometime losing and the current NFL labor fiasco proves this point. The players just won the first round of litigation and it reminds me of a Shakespear poem. “What win I, if I gain the thing I seek? A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy. Who buys a minute's mirth to wail a week? Or sells eternity to 'get a toy? For one sweet grape who will the vine destroy? Or what fond beggar, but to touch the crown, would with the scepter straight be stricken down?” In other words, the players won in a Minnesota district court and everyone, including the players, just lost.
What good is going to come from winning this Injunction? Nothing, not one iota. Do people really believe for one second that 32 billionaires are going to let one liberal judge (democratic, female and pro-union judge) decide the labor dispute. No single Judge, including Judge Nelson, could understand the reasons behind the litany of rules that have governed football over the decades and no judge could understand the full impact of lifting the lockout. The Judge’s Ruling actually forces the NFL to appeal, because they cannot let one player picked, pro-union judge’s decision set the rules for the entire industry. An appeal means delays and time spent away from football, i.e, losing.
In the unlikely chance the stay is not granted (and I give it less than a 10% chance that a republican, conservative, male dominated appellate Court would not stay the liberal, democratic, pro union judge’s decision while the appeal is moving forward), the players can presumably play football again. What rules apply during this injunction? The trial judge didn’t open an NFL rule book and say which rules are proper and which rule are improper. Are contracts negotiated under the old CBA still valid? Do teams still own players rights? Are the games going to be played under the same rules as last year? For that matter can the NFL actually set any rules? Maybe games will now be three quarters long when played in New York and five quarters long when played in California. This is why the appeal must go forward. The NFL has to find out what rules are permissible and what rules violate anti-trust laws
For these reasons, the appeal was predetermined if the owners lost and for all those who love football an appeal is necessary. The appeal is necessary because if the players win, football as we know it will change dramatically. If the players win all the NFL rules that ensure competitive balance get thrown out as a potential violations of anti-trust laws. Moreover while five to six teams may pay top dollar for talent, everyone else will lower salaries and cut perks just to get by, as a championship will be beyond their financial means. Assuming the NFL survives as an intact league, the NFL could end up looking a lot more like baseball with super teams and everyone else. Anyone checked attendance at a Nationals game lately?
Now that the players have obtained an injunction, some people believe they are using the lawsuit merely as leverage to force the owners to accept the old CBA parameters which the players really, really liked. The problem is that is not going to happen because not all NFL players want the same rules to apply and the owners want to wait for a final decision from someone besides a pro union judge. So the owners are going to appeal and this will take time. Five to eight months at least, assuming the matter is fast tracked. If the owners lose that appeal they will almost certainly appeal to the United State Supreme Court, who just might hear this case. One thing is sure, an appeal to the Minnesota appellate court takes too much time and if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it is going to be a long, long time before this thing is actually resolved.
After one or two years, lets assume the union finally wins the case, do the players really believe that the 32 billionaires that run football are going to play nice? Rich people
Ron - 13 years ago
Why would the pendulum swing? If the owners win fully and get everything they want it doesn't hurt me as a fan in any way, and is unlikely to change the product or parity at all. If the players win fully, I believe we are looking at baseball, and a degraded product.
Is anyone else depressed about the legal system here? Based on these rulings it looks as if the NFL has to take whatever the players give them. Force them to open the doors, and then when they do they will attack the rules put in place, and in Minnesota they are likely to win. Meaning, if the players decide no cap, no draft, no restrictions on free agency, then we will have none of those. And the owners can't do anything? It makes zero sense.
To say that the players are employees of the owners is not true. While they might get paid like employees, receive healthcare like employees they are the actual product. And while they do not assume any of the risk that the organization does, they risk their livelyhood everyweek when they step out onto the field. This whole issue began because the owners want more revenue from an 18 game season. They want more risk to fall on players so they can make more money. If you are an owner in the NFL and you cannot make money, you are either bad at business, or you are in the wrong market (not enough loyal NFL fans). The players may have agreed to the owners terms, but the owners were too arrogant to open their books and show the entire world how much $$$ they make each year! That was the only initial request from the NFLPA, and it was not met. The NFL and Roger "bad joke" Goodell feel they met the requests, but everyone knows that when you have something to hide and you are very powerful, you keep it hidden, period. If the players knew exactly how much the owner makes, their demands would increase. As they should.
Read the column to which you linked, and alas, am unimpressed.
The players are not "partners" in any way, shape, or form. They don't assume any risk that the clubs assume. They are utterly devoid of responsibility of any operating costs the clubs incur. The players do not own shares of the clubs the play for.
In short, the player's are not and have never been, "partners." It's a red herring.
Second, are you suggesting that the owners should be forced to choose between accepting all aspects of the 2006 CBA, or else risk destroying the NFL??
Is the 2006 CBA like the Ten Commandments or something? Is it sacred? Why on earth should we blame the owners for exercising their right to renegotiate the 2006 CBA, as both sides previously agreed?
You are advocating a false choice: either the owners accept the 2006 CBA in perpetuity or else accept blame for the players attempt to destroy the NFL as we know it. Isn't there a third way? Isn't that third was called "collective bargaining?"
Yet the players would have you believe that they had no other choice but to attack the antitrust exemptions in court. Actually, they players would rather fans didn't know that they are going there, and it looks like they're succeeding.
Either way, the decision to opt out of the 2006 CBA was something both sides agreed to in 2006. It was the only reason the owners agreed to the deal in the first place. The fact is, the 2006 CBA was going to expire in 2013 anyway, and you'll never convince anyone who is reasonable that the players would have acted any differently then than they are now.
Just because the owners want a better deal doesn't mean they have to choose between the old deal and the destruction of their business. That's a rather extreme position to take, but it's the position of the players, and apparently, of those who support them.
In summary, the owners wanted to renegotiation the 2006 CBA; the players wanted to gain leverage via decertification and a doomsday lawsuit. Let's not pretend the players had no other choice.
If you side with the owners because "the players want to destroy the game and change everything," you're a simpleton.
The owners are the ones that wanted the change. What those changes are, good or bad, is beside the point.
The players wanted essentially the exact same agreement they've been using for the last several years.
The owners should control the game and the money, hence the name owners! As employers they should have the right to hire and fire, and offer a pay scale and rules that suit them. If these pay scales and rules are so egregious then why can they continue to find new employees? If the employee's are not willing to play for what is offered, no one is forcing them. Go get a real job for 50 -60 k a year like everyone else. If you want to play, then play. If not get out and move on and let someone who wants to play do it. If I were an owner, I would consider shutting down all current operations and start a new league, one where I were truely in charge. Thes players are so spoiled and protected they think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Well welcome to the real world where actions have consequences. Piss off the boss and get fired. The NFL team owners should simply fire everyone and start hiring all over again. Here is the offer, take it or leave it. If they cannot find players, they will pay what is required to fill the rosters. If players show up to play for the offered wages then so be it. This had no business in the courts.
I understand what you're saying Ted, but I do think it's leverage, nothing more. Trust me the NFL draft isn't going anywhere. Please read the following article, the guy makes reference to this pole, or the one previous and comments.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-8383547
If you don't have the time or patience to read the entire article it's 3 main points are or rather false public perceptions are.
1. Players are the employees and owners are the boss. (They're actually partners)
2. The players have been less willing to negotiate than the owners. (They have been more than willing)
3. Revenues aren't continuing to climb. (They are, A LOT)
Please, please don't listen to Roger Goodell when he says "please help us, the big bad player's union is trying to destroy our game of football", it's all a scare tactic. A desperate act, from a desperate guy, trying to sway public opinion to his side through fear. The lawsuit is just a bargaining ploy , but many of you fail to understand this. Remember the NFL brought all this on themselves. They had a chance to extend the old CBA and allow player's to work under the old agreement, but opted out and then have the nerve to call this a work-stoppage. They forced this hand from the union by not opening their books and disclosing their financial records....a pretty clear sign that the owner's aren't as impoverished as you think. Don't let Roger Goodell insult your intelligence.
While I agree that decertifying the NFLPA is a tactic (yes leverage) it is in effect bringing us closer to an NFL season. No one truly belives that a CBA won't be agreed upon moving forward if the season does come to fruition. Players want to be treated fairly and since they have not been, they are pushing back. It is called asking for more knowing you will settle for less. To assert that the players are wrong here is absurd, they ARE the NFL. Owners don't suit up, they run a business and make a ton of money. If the owners were fully transparrent I would be more understanding of their POV (because we would know just how RICH they are gettign each year), but they are self serving and extremely greedy. I am glad to hear that you support those type of people.
This is all pointless. Obviously people are not going to change their CAPITALISTIC ways. I guess the players should just take a $1 billion paycut just because the owners would rather have it. Makes sense I guess The owners only make 50-150mil per year. How could that possibly fill their coffers?
God, I think you need to come down off your pedestal. Your comments are not factual and they speak utter foolishness
Please get Serious: the lawsuit filed by the (s0 called) decertified union Class expressly attacks all future drafts (notwithstanding the 2011 draft which was contemplated by the 2006 CBA) as well as the salary cap, testing for performance enhancing drugs - in short, anything that could be constituted as a restriction of trade.
Without a CBA, there are no rules, and the NFL would, as a result, be forced to operate like, for example, MLB.
THAT'S what the union (or trade association as if there really is any difference) is seeking.
Maybe it's just leverage - but if it is, than how can decertification be anything BUT a sham?
So in the end, the class formerly known as the NFLPA is either attacking the competitive foundation of the NFL, or else it is merely seeking leverage through the courts, thereby proving decertification is a sham.
Either way, the owners are right in this instance, and the players are wrong.
Dave - will you please take your class warfare and marxist dialectic and shove it?
This is about football, not your personal crusade for "social justice." I am a Democrat, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. I support the owners because they are, in this case, positioned to protect the game I love. The players? Not so much.
Stop using the lockout as a stump for your Leninist babbling and start talking - and thinking - like a fan. Otherwise, your opinion is stupendously irrelevant.
Please Get Serious you couldn't be more right.
The owners opted out of the deal because they wanted more money and an 18 game schedule, players saying they want no salary cap, no draft, and a free market system, where players coming into the league are allowed to sign where they want is simply a response to that. If you want this, we want that. Trust me, it won't happen. The players want to meet in the middle, the owners don't.
Ted, please enlighten us as to how the courts will ruin football? The G Beck comment is an example of some one who makes countless statements that lack any factual basis. It is sad but facts and truth in this country are becoming a scarce commoditiy. Sorry to ruffle your democratic feathers, but most FANS support the players. period. good try though!
God - just to keep you up to speed with develoopments, there is no longer a players union. So, your liberal union comments are moot. Also, how full of yourself could you be to call yourself god. This has to do with greed and its quite clear you are pro greed. Way to go! You ever even play the game? From your comments i would say that you are conservative (for sure), and probably lacked the blue collar toughness to play a sport like football. I would also say you are likely..................well I will just say that most players are black and nearly all owners are white.
I am a Democrat, and I DO NOT support the players' attempt to ruin the NFL through the courts.
Those of you who care more about politics and your ideology can suck it. Most of us who support the owners do so because we are fans of the NFL. I watch football to get away from the usual politics - but the union and its leaders want to take a political sledgehammer to the national pastime and I cannot support it.
Those of you who want to inject your idiotic political opinions into this debate aren't true fans at all. And calling out those who disagree with you as a bunch of Glenn Beck fans makes you look like the biggest asses in world history.
God, How can anyone take you seriously when you name yourself God. I wouldn't say misinformed people are pro-player, and I am surely not misinformed. I also was never in a union so I am not biased for or against them. However I am biased about signing over all the money to the richest people in the world. 1 percent of the human population owns 99 percent of everything. Thats not the standard I want to live my entire life.
So for all you pro owner middle class sheep. Keep signing away your rights so the haves can have more than you
People like this are a joke. Making factless statements - must be a fox news watcher:
"I'm pro owner because if the players won this- sports as we know it would never be the same. Things such as the draft would be gone and you would have a system much like baseball- where a handful of teams dominate. "
Maybe that was just G Beck weighing in?
First of all, Mike you can't "slap the sh*t out these players", they're bigger than you and second, please read something and form an actual INTELLIGENT opinion. I don't even know how to respond to that, sensing some underlying racism too.
Judging from the pro-union comments, it's pretty clear that the dumber you are, the more likely you are to support the players; the more left you lean, the more pro-union you'll be; the more uninformed about this issue, the more unabashedly pro-player you are.
The pro-union crowd is breathtakingly stupid. What a bunch of stupid asses!
Unbelievable . . .
I wish I could slap the sh*t out of all these players! They are destroying the game that better men built for their whinney butts. It's sad that they are that selfish.
Why would anyone support the greed of the owners? The players ARE the NFL, they are the product and if you are a fan I don't I don't see why you would support the greed that may destroy the best sport in the world. Someone noted that if the players win, the product some how dimishes. How? The owners are makign a lot more $$ than we might think (hence very little transaparancy) so why supoport greed. Greed is ruining the country in so many other ways. Unless of course you are agreddy sc$mbag your self.
Clearly the majority if you lack the basic skills to watch a news broadcast... anyone who cannot see how ridiculous the owners are being whining over a 9 billion dollar pot when they are already over paid as it is, is a complete idiot... the OWNERS started this battle and cant handle the fact that they are losing.. its that simple, watch a news broadcast
I don't know how anyone can side with the owners. I used to like Roger Goodell, but he is a snake. He uses words like "work stoppage", but its not a work stoppage, Roger, it's a lockout. He says players are attacking the game of football and want a free market system, but that's not the case at all. The players were fine with the way the league was run, it was the OWNERS who opted out of the current agreement because they wanted more money, not the players. In every other major sport, baseball, basketball, hockey, the players make at least 50% of the total revenue, however in football, the owners think the players deserve 38%.....HOW IS THAT RIGHT?? You play in the most popular sport in America and arguably the most physically demanding, but yet we want to pay you less money. J.P said it right, it is pure and utter greed and if you side with the owners you clearly have no idea of what's going on and have been listening to the spin-doctor Roger Goodell instead of looking at the facts. If anything the players should be getting more money, not in terms of salary, but in benefits and post retirement compensation packages. And please don't present the argument, "Doctors only make 500k a year, so why does Peyton Manning deserve $15 million a year?" Yes, the AVERAGE doctor does make that, but so does the AVERAGE pro football player. What do you think the highest paid doctors, specialists, and surgeons make? Probably a few million too, so if you're going to make a comparison make sure you keep it all in perspective. The only changes necessary in football are that you need a salary cap to keep an even playing field so that high market teams don't dominate the way MLB franchises do. This makes it hard to truly create a dynasty and teams like the Patriots and Steelers (hate them both, but you gotta respect them) are rewarded to spending their money wisely in free agency and draft well. The one change that NEEDS to be made it a rookie wage scale. You can't shovel out millions in guaranteed money to guys who haven't set foot on the field. Think of it this way.....if i go into an organization with the potential to be a your next CEO or on the board of directors (one of your best players) are you going to start out by paying me upper to middle management money....HELL NO. Top picks should be making a couple million, sure, even get a million or two in signing bonus, but not the ridiculous amounts we see today. Furthermore these deals should only be 3-4 years, not just to protect against your Jamarcus Russell's and Vernon Gholston's, but also your Chris Johnson's and Darelle Revis' as well, guys who establish themselves in their first few seasons as top tier guys, that way you don't have to worry about a hold out in camp. You get your rookie deal and if you prove yourself then you get your long term contract and make your DESERVED money. Also you wouldn't have to worry too much about guys leaving for free agency because they've build a rapport with the players and coaches around you and so much of the NFL is about schemes so this team obviously knows how to use you, plus who wants to learn a whole other playbook and there's also the loyalty factor.
Sorry it was a long read and possible spelling and grammar errors, was a quick type, but I believe football is the greatest sport we have in this country. Whatever your opinions are hopefully we can get back to football and all enjoy the 2011 season. Enjoy the draft everyone. GO 49ers!!!
Ted, I am assuming you are the same person who always claims FOX news isn't a Republican news network. Just because someone's name isn't on PFT doesn't mean that "said" person can't influence PFT.
Been a member of PFT for 5 years, and ever since this site was BOUGHT by NBC it has had its agendas. Whether they are league rules, player rules, or anything player related this site has leaned towards the owners greater good. I'm sorry that the average fans can't catch on.
The problem with florio is that he is transparently pro-florio. He has openly complained about how the lockout will hurt his sites' "traffic" (read money) and has been anti-lockout ever since it started. If you think he's pro owners then you aren't paying attention. I wish we could get the football news without having it filtered by this self-serving blowhard.
There actually is an affiliation between the league and PFT...the NFL is an official sponsor of the site. That being said - there is a clear liberal/puppy dog court bias by Florio for the players.
Dave, Michael and the rest of the peanut gallery: if you actually believe that PFT is owned by the NFL, or is financed by the NFL or whatever, you are seriously misinformed and/or seriously handicapped.
Apparently, Special Olympians care about the lockout too.
Of course PFT is pro owner. Why would the owners pay for the website if they were not going to use it as a propaganda platform. PFT has been totally biased against the players for months, and it is even more prevalent when these stupid polls are cast. This is the only site I have seen that is so lopsided for the owners
If anybody truly believes the owners are losing money or are in danger of losing money, than you are the sheep
If you're on the owners side, you're not paying attention to what's going on. And don't give me the line "I'd play for free" because you wouldn't unless you mean a weekend flag football league. The owners chose to start this battle. The owners are greedy bastards who are always looking to take money from someone whether its the players or cities/states (us) for their stadiums.
Forgot the 8th circuit reads Florio's polls to make decisions. Although that might be the best thing these liberal run chambers could do in certain situations. It is clear as night and day that ever since the ruling came down Florio has been pushing propaganda for the player's side. If you read these articles and think otherwise, well maybe you shouldn't be reading. Anything.
of course he is Ted think about it the court rules in the players favor so now he wants to do a fake poll again to try to sway the eighth circuit; it is propoganda Ted
Michael, are you on drugs or something? 89% pro-player? You think Florio is pro-owner?
Can I get some of that?
anyone who does not know what a knagoroo court is it is a court that even if someone is inncoent they find them guilty even if they know it is not true or vice versa. It is like a court that compares to a referee being paid off to help a certain team win or a team that intentionally loses a game to get paid off by the mob or something like that. Basically an unfair system kind of like what they do in Iran or countries like that.
You and I and everyone else knows your poll is fake just like the polls were before fox news came into existence. You have been on the owners side with everything and obviously they lose in court with their biased arguments you are like a kangoroo court yourself when it comes to your opinions on this dispute they are not objective and are not real if you actually did a poll and posted the real answers the results would be like 89 percent players and you know it. That is the reason I do not join your site to make posts except when you have them open to everyone because you guys are disingenuous and on the owners payroll or at least you want to get more access to information through them so you spread their propoganda as being fair and true. Sorry you guys have great information and I love to use your site as a source but other than that you guys are just like the crazy lawyers on the owners side who steal their money by not being honest with them or maybe they are just waiting to get the right judge so they can have a kangoroo court like your kangoroo court of opinion you have going on hear on the labor dispute on your site. Any other network that does a poll is different then yours if they are not lying.
It should change even more in the owner's favor now. People don't realize that the players took this to court, and that is going to result in court fiasco well into training camp when the two sides could be sitting down and working out a deal to kick the season off on time. Why in the hell would anyone want government controlling the NFL labor process? They have continuously shammed up anything and everything that should be left to private business.
seams the owners shills are still hard at work
I'm pro owner because if the players won this- sports as we know it would never be the same. Things such as the draft would be gone and you would have a system much like baseball- where a handful of teams dominate.
Ben, the court has not "provided a resolution." The owners are not resisting anything other than being sued for antitrust violations by the union, because there are no collective bargaining rules in place.
Your logic is exactly why some folks will mistakenly support the players. You think Judge Nelson fixed everything when, in reality, she just opened the door for an all-out assault on the NFL as we know it.
I'm really just tired of the dispute, I want football to happen. I didn't care who won, but now that the court has provided a resolution, the fact that the owners are resisting it makes me madder at them.
My names says it all.
Good point about the necessity (or lack thereof) to re-poll. Why should I shift my support from the owners to the players just because a liberal judge sided with labor against management?
Sampling bias, Florio. What type of person reads a lawyer's blog about the NFL? Probably not the average fan! Your poll will be skewed in favor of owners.
Florio will keep this up until his labor lawyer point of view wins.! he's been trying to get public opinion(unsucsess fully for weeks) on the players side and he wont give up until he does...!
I agree Ron. 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. This poll is crap, and the people who swung to the union side clearly never bothered to understand the issues at stake in the first place.
Idiots.
Just keep putting it out there until you get the resoults you want.
Your a joke
Winning is sometime losing and the current NFL labor fiasco proves this point. The players just won the first round of litigation and it reminds me of a Shakespear poem. “What win I, if I gain the thing I seek? A dream, a breath, a froth of fleeting joy. Who buys a minute's mirth to wail a week? Or sells eternity to 'get a toy? For one sweet grape who will the vine destroy? Or what fond beggar, but to touch the crown, would with the scepter straight be stricken down?” In other words, the players won in a Minnesota district court and everyone, including the players, just lost.
What good is going to come from winning this Injunction? Nothing, not one iota. Do people really believe for one second that 32 billionaires are going to let one liberal judge (democratic, female and pro-union judge) decide the labor dispute. No single Judge, including Judge Nelson, could understand the reasons behind the litany of rules that have governed football over the decades and no judge could understand the full impact of lifting the lockout. The Judge’s Ruling actually forces the NFL to appeal, because they cannot let one player picked, pro-union judge’s decision set the rules for the entire industry. An appeal means delays and time spent away from football, i.e, losing.
In the unlikely chance the stay is not granted (and I give it less than a 10% chance that a republican, conservative, male dominated appellate Court would not stay the liberal, democratic, pro union judge’s decision while the appeal is moving forward), the players can presumably play football again. What rules apply during this injunction? The trial judge didn’t open an NFL rule book and say which rules are proper and which rule are improper. Are contracts negotiated under the old CBA still valid? Do teams still own players rights? Are the games going to be played under the same rules as last year? For that matter can the NFL actually set any rules? Maybe games will now be three quarters long when played in New York and five quarters long when played in California. This is why the appeal must go forward. The NFL has to find out what rules are permissible and what rules violate anti-trust laws
For these reasons, the appeal was predetermined if the owners lost and for all those who love football an appeal is necessary. The appeal is necessary because if the players win, football as we know it will change dramatically. If the players win all the NFL rules that ensure competitive balance get thrown out as a potential violations of anti-trust laws. Moreover while five to six teams may pay top dollar for talent, everyone else will lower salaries and cut perks just to get by, as a championship will be beyond their financial means. Assuming the NFL survives as an intact league, the NFL could end up looking a lot more like baseball with super teams and everyone else. Anyone checked attendance at a Nationals game lately?
Now that the players have obtained an injunction, some people believe they are using the lawsuit merely as leverage to force the owners to accept the old CBA parameters which the players really, really liked. The problem is that is not going to happen because not all NFL players want the same rules to apply and the owners want to wait for a final decision from someone besides a pro union judge. So the owners are going to appeal and this will take time. Five to eight months at least, assuming the matter is fast tracked. If the owners lose that appeal they will almost certainly appeal to the United State Supreme Court, who just might hear this case. One thing is sure, an appeal to the Minnesota appellate court takes too much time and if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it is going to be a long, long time before this thing is actually resolved.
After one or two years, lets assume the union finally wins the case, do the players really believe that the 32 billionaires that run football are going to play nice? Rich people
Why would the pendulum swing? If the owners win fully and get everything they want it doesn't hurt me as a fan in any way, and is unlikely to change the product or parity at all. If the players win fully, I believe we are looking at baseball, and a degraded product.
Is anyone else depressed about the legal system here? Based on these rulings it looks as if the NFL has to take whatever the players give them. Force them to open the doors, and then when they do they will attack the rules put in place, and in Minnesota they are likely to win. Meaning, if the players decide no cap, no draft, no restrictions on free agency, then we will have none of those. And the owners can't do anything? It makes zero sense.