In looking at the current labor situation in the NFL -- the way I see it -- the players really don't have much choice in the matter--that is, if they want to play football.
If you're totally on the side of the players, you might not want to read any further.
First of all, it's hard for me to feel sorry for multi-millionaires fighting with multi-billionaires.
If we lived in a perfect world, I wish every franchise was like the Green Bay Packers, where it's a municipally owned team. Obviously, we're not in a perfect world, so that's not going to happen again.
In full disclosure, in my day job, I own a financial services business, so I come down on the side of ownership. I didn't start my business to employ people, neither does anybody that starts a business. That is a by-product of a business. As it grows, there is a need for employees and all that surrounds it.
Players come and players go, but ownership remains.
Even if an owner fails financially -- and it's hard for an NFL owner to fail -- another businessman or coalition will come along and buy the entity. Without owners there is no NFL, just as without fans there is no NFL. I doubt if the fans are going to give up the NFL because it is so popular, so that leaves the owners.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the owners of a business should take advantage of workers by any means, but to term it 'modern day slavery' as Adrian Peterson did recently is laughable, considering a modern NFL player usually works for 5-6 months and receives anywhere from the league minimum $300,000 to upward of several millions. It could be argued that the player might have to play in a city that he doesn't want to for anywhere from three to five years (or whatever the current free agency agreement is) until he can become a free agent and then can go wherever he wants to. He might be an indentured servant, but not a slave.
If that's what a slave is, where do I sign up?
Recently, Scott Fujita's wife wrote a letter about the problems of an NFL player from the wife's perspective. She talked about some of the pitfalls of being a professional football player and brought up many good points in supporting the players and what they are fighting for in this standoff.
But once again, with no disrespect to Mrs. Fujita, no one is forcing someone to play a game that a lot of guys would jump at if given the chance.
The last time I checked, there was nobody putting a gun to the player's heads to play the game of football. If they don't like the benefits or the pay structure, or whatever, it might be they can take their talents to the real world and get a real job like most of us do.
I don't begrudge the players to get as much as they can, while they can, but the game will go on.
College football is extremely popular. In fact, many of my friends and acquaintances tell me they enjoy the college game more so than the NFL.
I'm not one of those, but I do watch college football more than as a casual fan.
But, when you really stop and analyze it, we're watching college teams that rarely have more than a handful of players that make it to the NFL each year. If we only watch the game because of stars, then the popularity of the college game doesn't make sense. I think it's because we like to watch the game of football, period.
My point is this. If the current NFL players don't want to play the game, there will be others who will. If you look at the strike of 1987, replacement players stepped in to play and sure, they weren't very good.
They were truck drivers, teachers, insurance salesman and came from all walks of life. They jumped at the chance to get a chance to play pro football. Most of them were the same players from teams that every one watched in college on Saturday, but they weren't as good as the 'real' NFL players.
However, it is my contention that if those same players were on television week after week, year after year, they would be household names and the cream would rise to the top. In the strike of 1987, the 'real' players realized that and came back by the third game. The 'replacement' players never really were able to become household names.
There are always going to be stars, the likes of Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and so on, but the vast majority of the players on NFL rosters are not separated by a lot of talent. Those players can be replaced and will be replaced.
It wouldn't be surprising to me if the players and the owners don't reach an agreement, the owners would use replacement players once again.
The players don't have much choice. If they want to play football their options are limited. They could go to the Canadian League, Arena league or the UFL. The UFL was started with hopes of luring the players from the NFL, if and when a lockout happened, but until the money is comparable in that league the NFL will always be king.
Let's just hope the players figure this out, sooner than later.
