Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue?

xan · 01-27-2011, 12:02 PM

If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world.

The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club.

Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts."

For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash.

For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated.

If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's.

I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment.

View Poll Results: Do you side with the Owners or the Players on the CBA issue?
OWNERS - they take the risks and drive the business	17	53.13%
PLAYERS - they do all the work on the field and provide the entertainment to the fans	15	46.88%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

01-27-2011, 12:02 PM	#22
xan Professor Crab and Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Princeton Posts: 3,372 Blog Entries: 34	If there were only another league where one could carry a ball and hit each other in pads for any wage anywhere else in the world. The good thing is, both activities are choices. There is no law that says one MUST play football just as there is no law that says one MUST own a football club. Lastly, both sides have power over the other. The players can strike and the owners can lock out. Neither side has ultimate leverage, so it will depend on how far each will go to get their "just deserts." For the players, their risk is salaries. They've all given up on having a healthy life after football. All they want is cash. For the owners, their risk is that they diminish the importance of the game and allow other sports to displace them in the fall, thus deteriorating their ability to gain the favorable TV contracts currently negotiated. If you cut the players' salaries in half, how many would walk away, claiming unjust wages. If the minimum currently is $300,000, that's top 1% money. Even if cut in half, that's top 8% money. And that's at MINIMUM. I agree with the poster who rightly identified that these players don't think that they should have to work at a real job after football - that it should endow their lives and their children's. I vote Owners, simply because the insanity has to stop. If the owners make more money, they might be incentivised not to raid public funds for stadiums or raise ticket prices so high that only the top 8% can realistically afford the entertainment.
	Calvin: "I wish I was a Tiger." Hobbes: "Common lament."