I haven't seen anything yet that tells me the player has a "right" to holdout.

I am pretty certain it allows for a player to seek reasonable remedy should he feel he has outperformed his contract. I doubt you will find the specific term "a player can hold out," but it provides them the leverage to withhold their services(as I stated earlier) and allows for renegotiation of the contract.

Again, dishonor is not my term. I used it cause Danno used it. I think both sides break contracts all the time, and that is fine with me. I just don't think it is fair when people say one side can do it, but the other side can't.

The player's agreed to this CBA.
Deal with it.
They have the right to hold out because this is America.
If owners don't like it they can cut the player.
and take the hit

The player's agreed to this CBA.
Deal with it.
They have the right to hold out because this is America.
If owners don't like it they can cut the player.
and take the hit

As you may have already noticed the rights afforded all Americans are not unfettered. I would think that there is no right to hold out for more compensation guaranteed to anyone by the constitution.

Obviously there must be some mechanism which allows players to holdout, I just haven't identified it as of yet.

If a player holds out its breech of contract. When player breechs his contract the team can cut him lose or not pay him.

This talk about contracts is just like most jobs. don't try and read into the letter of the contract. If you are hired by an employer you are under contract for that specific job. If you exceed expectations of that job you are rewarded through bonous or a raise. If you feel you are under paid you are free to bring it to management. If you do not agree with what is stated you have that right to sit out and management has the right to terminate your contract. they are paid good money most of us will never see to entertain, me I am paid to defend this counrty if we refuse we (this country would go to hell in a hand basket).

There is some difference between an NFL player and a regular joe under contract. For instance, my wife is a teacher who signs a contract with a private school every year. If she decided that she was being underpaid and chose to holdout after the christmas break until they paid her more, she would be fired and likely sued for breach of contract.

I think about players like Joey Galloway, who held out all of training camp and half a season. There must be some mecahnism that causes the team not to take action. First, I recognize that the team has an interest to keep him rather than fire him and let him go free. That makes sense to me. However, the second part is that the team doesn't file suit for damages. This is probably the key since I believe I read that teams and players are prohibited from suing one another by the CBA.

That really may be all there is to it. The CBA might not grant the player the right to hold out, but the reality is that it is allowed by the operation of the team's need to keep their rights to the player plus the team's inability to sue the player for breach.

Thus, we never see players who are not important to their teams holding out. The player has to be secure enough (if he wants to remain with the team) that he wont simply be cut for holding out.

The exact wording of "hold out" may not be there, but obviously there are mechanisms in the CBA that allow for this action to be taken without fear of reprisal from the team, outside of fines and such. A player like TO can just say cut me, and he will get what he is asking elsewhere. So to say it doesn't grant the player the right to hold out while acknowledging the machinations of the CBA prevent a team from suing a player who is holding out is kinda a thin line to walk to make a point.