kmd24;1952894 said:
I don't feel sorry for them at all. I just understand that they have one and only one tool for bargaining, and that is their ability to refuse to work.
You think they should be villified for striking because of the magnitude of their salaries, but they likely wouldn't be making millions without the major changes in the labor agreements - changes that likely wouldn't have occurred without the threat of strikes.
I have a feeling that there is some salary level at which you might feel the players were justified in striking. What is it? 250K? 100K? Whatever the number is, you should realize that it is arbitrary.
NFL players are elite in their field. Their income is comparable to elites in other endeavors - doctors, lawyers, actors, traders, investment bankers - but they have a much smaller window for earning such salaries when compared to those other professions and much less capacity for influencing the rate at which they are paid.
The players and the owners have what amounts to a partnership, and the issue at hand is the fair division of the profits among the partners, not whether a person earning a seven-digit salary should have the right to ask for more money. Sure, the players might not be able to make the same salary outside of football, but the owners stand to lose a very profitable business if they let it get watered down by using less-than-elite players. Both sides have incentive to negotiate.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google as equal partners. Would you think it fair if Page had the ability to unilaterally set the value of Brin's ownership at, say, $30 million when the market cap of the company is over $100 billion? You might not feel sorry for Brin, the multimillionaire, but you could hardly begrudge the guy for following channels to get his fair share.
I'm not suggesting you should feel sorry for the players, merely that you ought not begrudge them for using the only vehicle available to them to determine their fair share.
I disagree with just about everything you said here. First off, they have the ability to work for another team. They don't like what team X is paying them? Fine, go play for team Y.
NFL players are the elite, you're right, but in no way does that mean they are entitled to a comparable salary to other "elites". Elite spec ops dudes, by far a more dangerous, physically demanding job (with a lesser window of earning) gets paid peanuts compared to a football player. I guarantee you a football player couldn't do a spec ops dude's job.
They are not a partnership, the players play FOR a team (owned by an owner). It is an employer, employee relationship in that if the business venture loses money, the players expect to make the exact same. It's not they're money they build stadiums with, or pay coaches/training staff, etc... so the profits from such endeavors do NOT belong to the players and therefore does not constitute a partnership. I don't have a RIGHT to anything my employer makes, but rather, based on my merit to the company and the competition for my services, I am paid a certain amount. If I don't like it, I can find somewhere else to work or ask for a raise. They aren't obligated to give me a raise though, no matter how much they profit.
Thus, your google example is completely off-base because they own google together, thus the profit has to be shared. If a player bought half the team from his owner, then he is entitled to half the profits.
However, I do respect their right to not work. After all, what's the alternative? You can't make them work (slavery, I think we can all agree, is bad).
