Deadspin’s Drew Magary and ProFootballTalk’s Mike Florio are having a hard time understanding why the majority of fans seem to be supporting the owners in the labor mess.
We at GLS have said time and again that we think the owners have been much more reasonable than the players during this entire process, and we stand by that belief. Here’s a brief summary to explain our stance:
- The players have admitted on several occasions that the deal they got in 2006 was lopsided. The league was originally looking to shave an extra $1 billion off the top, but by the time the players — who were clearly not negotiating in good faith — decided to decertify their union and sue the league on March 11, the owners had made over $600 million in concessions and had caved on several major sticking points, such as the rookie wage scale and the proposed 18-game regular season.
- The players knew that a pro-union group of federal judges in Minnesota would side with them in court, and they also knew that Judge David Doty would likely crush the league in the ongoing TV damages hearing. They knew they had the leverage and they made all attempts to bleed the owners dry.
- Decertification is a dirty tactic that goes against everything unions stand for.
But I don’t have anything against those who sympathize with the players. I’ve said time and again that the owners are the lesser of two evils, and both parties should be held accountable for the selfish way in which they’ve approached this process.
That said, I don’t think that Magary and Florio (and many others) are taking the right approach. I understand why hordes of fans and media types don’t care about the outcome of this battle, and are more concerned with the return of football, whatever way possible. But I think that’s a childish mentality.
If you’re a football fan, you should be concerned with the long-term future of the game. Would it be great to see a full slate of games in 2011? Would it be a shame if football was on pause on Sept. 11, 2011? Absolutely. But unfortunately, that might be necessary in order to achieve long-term labor peace.
Both sides are firmly entrenched, and that sucks. But we’re just going to have to accept that the NFL and NFLPA are far apart on several major points.
Here’s Magary’s take:
You can find retarded commenters at virtually any Internet forum (why, just scroll down!), but the idea that there are people out there who would like to see the owners succeed in PREVENTING THE PLAYING OF ACTUAL NFL GAMES to spite NFL players strikes me as … what’s the word? Oh, right. F—— INSANE.
And here’s Florio’s take:
Though the players aren’t doing what they’re doing for the fans (indeed, the players weren’t trying to give the fans football when they went on strike in 1982 and 1987), we should want the outcome that gives us football, sooner rather than later. And if the parties aren’t going to work out a new CBA before the middle of June (the ideal solution), then we should all want the next best thing — and order from the Eighth Circuit lifting the lockout.
The above opinions are short-sighted. They aren’t considering what a quick and dirty deal might do to this league in 2013, 2014 and beyond.
Sorry, guys, but I don’t want “the outcome that gives us football, sooner rather than later.” I want the outcome that ensures we won’t be in this exact same position two or three years from now because one of the two sides once again feels as though they were screwed in the last labor agreement.
I hope for the sake of my career and my personal life that we don’t lose games — or an entire season — as a result of this disaster, and common sense tells me that something will get done this summer. But I’m willing to risk pushing this thing to the brink so that we can somehow get to a point at which both parties feel they have agreed to a fair deal.