Which side are you on in the stalled CBA talks: players or owners?

[Doomsday101]

You think player would share the money they make off endorsmments? I would agree the owners are greedy but I would say the players union is just as greedy if not more.

 

[aznhalf]

So lesser educated people should just step aside and let "better" people tell them what is fair compensation? That's a bit elitist isn't it?

When dealing with the billion dollar industry that is the NFL you just can't afford not having the best possible decision makers calling the shots. Thats just my two cents, take it how you will.

 

[Skip]

NO, thats the producers. When there is no guy inventing Gasoline engine, there are no Car manufacturing plants to work with.

Just like with no guy inventing original tubes and now chips, I wouldn't have programmer job to work.

So Owners are the risk takers, who take a lot of risk in putting their money, since quite a few of them were not born rich. Players deserve their share of money too, but far too many are born with the talent they have, not too many are their due to solely their hard work.

Either way I have always disliked Unions, since they are the primary forces in the drive of jobs from US, as they drive up the cost of hiring way too high and hence force business to find cheaper ways to manufacture, to keep cost of goods low etc.

I think Players benifit a lot from Uncapped salary systems. THey can make more money, I believe several players were against Capped system, like Irvin, who thought it was bad system since teams couldn't keep their older players etc.

I am also on the owners side as they are the risk takers. I am sorry to say I don't want to hear any players winning about their pay. They make enough as it is and if they don't like that pay may I suggest they find other employment like the rest of us not in the NFL or other pro sports.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Wow. I am shocked so many folks back the owners. Remember, they're not all like Jerry!