Is anyone else getting tired of potential NFL lockout?
It's a big story and needs to be followed closely, but it's the two sides that annoying. How are fans supposed to choose sides between the NFL owners and players? They are both coming off as greedy, yet they are both crying to fans and the media that they are getting screwed.
Apparently, one of the main points of contention is the owners received $1 billion off the top under the previous CBA and want $2 billion off the top in the next one to cover rising costs. This would mean less money in the pol for players, so they obviously don't want that.
That's the main argument from what I can tell. It seems they are willing to compromise on the stupid 18-game schedule and a rookie wage scale.
 |
| Greed is good unless you're an NFL fan. |
So how exactly do these billionaires and millionaires expect to gain our support when they are fighting over $1 billion in an industry that had $9.3 billion in revenue last season?
How are fans supposed to feel bad for either side? You have players crying that they won't have league-provided health insurance if there is a lockout. This is a common problem countless Americans face every day, but unlike these NFL players, most regular people don't make millions of dollars. The players can afford a few months of buying their own health insurance.
On the flip side, how can anyone feel bad for these billionaire owners? They are going to make money even if there isn't a season. They cry about rising costs and the need to build new stadiums, yet taxpayers have been footing the bill for many of these modern stadiums in all sports. These same owners charge ridiculous amounts of money for jerseys and other sports merchandise. Why should we feel bad for them if the players want that extra $1 billion for their salaries. Afterall, the players are the ones endangering their lives.
I think I speak for the majority of football fans when I say that both sides are coming off as greedy. That's how business works, though. Business leaders are always trying to get the best deal for their own interests. Businesses are also content with sacrificing short-term profits in exchange for greater long-term profits, which is exactly what the owners' stance is regarding the CBA. Sure, they won't make as much money this season if there is a lockout, but if their long-term profits will significantly increase if they get their way in negotiations.
It's unclear which side will win, but it's very clear that the fans will lose if this stalemate continues and there is no 2011 season.
Dire Straits - Money for Nothing
off subject - but did you read reilly's column in reaction to the kid forfeiting in the iowa state wrestling tournament because he didn't want to wrestle a girl because of his beliefs?
ReplyDeletei kinda feel like addressing it myself. for once, i'm against reilly.
I did read Reilly's take on that issue. For the most part, I disagreed with Reilly. I don't like that he questioned the guy's beliefs, but I thought he made a good point about how the whole circus that followed took away from the fact that the girl was the first girl wrestler to win a match in the 85-year history of the state tournament.
ReplyDeleteI also didn't like that he brought up that the guy cried after he lost his consolation match. It really served no purpose.
or saying that he hopes the kid that's on the way is a boy.
ReplyDeletefor me.. yeah i get that the girl can obviously hold her own as a wrestler. it's not easy to qualify for state, especially in iowa. she's obviously capable of beating athletic boys.
but his decision doesn't diminish that at all. in fact, it's entirely separate. it's not that this kid was afraid of hurting this girl, or didn't want to risk losing to this girl.. he just doesn't believe men should engage in any type of combat with women.
i get the fact that, as a writer, he was licking his chops with that lead, getting to describe this girl as a warrior who doesn't need any protection, but his angle was bad. you can still build this girl up, but don't throw a kid under the bus (who was obviously devastated that he had to default) for something that he would have done even if it was the first match of the season.
the "media hurricane" was a good observation, but you can't blame that kid for the reaction of the media. they didn't intend to take away from the girl's spotlight (or create one of their own for that matter). two stories just happened to wrestle it out in the same fashion that they were supposed to.
normally reilly's a pretty sympathetic writer, but while he tried to be so with the girl, he completely missed the point with joel.
I like how you used wrestle in there. Cute.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I completely agree. Reilly missed with this one. You have to put yourself in that position. Would you wrestle a girl? I probably wouldn't. Not because they are supposed to be weaker than I am (I know plenty who are not!), but because I was raised not to raise a hand against a woman. There is nothing wrong with that belief.
no pin.. i mean pun.. intended.
ReplyDelete