Who do you side with in this debacle? Owners or Players?

[40yearfan]

1) The players don't get a guarateed increase in "their slice of the pie every year." The percentage of revenue doesn't increase every year; when the revenue increases, so does the salary cap. But it's not like owners get 45% of revenues, then 42%, then 40%, then 38%. That's the slice of the pie increasing every year. That's not what happens.

2) Well, I'm sure that 99.9% of the population can't complete a deep out with Dwight Freeney bearing down on him. I'm sure that 99.9% of the population can't run a 4.50 40 while looking over their shoulder for the ball and hand-fighting a cornerback. This argument never makes any sense to me.

3) I agree with you, but if the owners get the financial benefit from new stadiums, why do they want money back from the players? If it's really bad for them (And the Green Bay books suggest it's not) then open your books and tell us how you're in trouble.



That's what collective bargaining is all about. It was a mistake of the middle class to be conned into giving up employer-sponsored pensions in exchange for 401Ks with potentially higher growth but also much much higher risk. You're not less important, but you have less leverage. Because people stupidly allowed the unions to be dismantled over the last 30 years and gave up financial security doesn't mean that people who didn't do that shouldn't have the rights that they asked for.

Are you less important? I don't know. Do you have a skill set that the market deems less valuable? Certainly. Sorry, but that's the way free enterprise works.



Why can't you have a yearly increase in the salary cap if revenues keep increasing every yet? The salary cap is tied to revenues. If revenues go down, then so does the salary cap. If the league is in trouble (which they're clearly not), then open the books and show the union. The real issue is that small-market teams are in trouble and the big market teams are not, and instead of increasing revenue-sharing, the League wants to take the difference out of the players' pockets.

No one is forcing NFL owners to take the risk that they're taking for guaranteed profit every year. If they're not happy with their return on their investment, then they can sell the team. See how easy this is to work in both directions? No one is paying money to see Jerry Jones's team; they're paying money to see the Dallas Cowboys. No one is paying money so that Bill Bidwill can make money; they're paying to see Larry Fitzgerald.

I hate the college game and can't watch it because the quality is low--even for good teams. I can't tell you the number of fans I've talked to who want no part of players who not only aren't good enough to play in the NFL right now, but also are so bad that they aren't worried about being scabs and being barred from the NFLPA whenever the labor issues are settled.

K9, you didn't answer question #4 from Bucky. If you are going to split up the pie, you need to be liable for the risks as well as the rewards. I don't see the players agreeing to lower their salaries if the ticket sales are less than expected or if costs like travel, etc go up due to the higher price of gasoline. Wouldn't that be only fair?

 

[Chopper0080]

1) The players don't get a guarateed increase in "their slice of the pie every year." The percentage of revenue doesn't increase every year; when the revenue increases, so does the salary cap. But it's not like owners get 45% of revenues, then 42%, then 40%, then 38%. That's the slice of the pie increasing every year. That's not what happens.

2) Well, I'm sure that 99.9% of the population can't complete a deep out with Dwight Freeney bearing down on him. I'm sure that 99.9% of the population can't run a 4.50 40 while looking over their shoulder for the ball and hand-fighting a cornerback. This argument never makes any sense to me.

3) I agree with you, but if the owners get the financial benefit from new stadiums, why do they want money back from the players? If it's really bad for them (And the Green Bay books suggest it's not) then open your books and tell us how you're in trouble.



That's what collective bargaining is all about. It was a mistake of the middle class to be conned into giving up employer-sponsored pensions in exchange for 401Ks with potentially higher growth but also much much higher risk. You're not less important, but you have less leverage. Because people stupidly allowed the unions to be dismantled over the last 30 years and gave up financial security doesn't mean that people who didn't do that shouldn't have the rights that they asked for.

Are you less important? I don't know. Do you have a skill set that the market deems less valuable? Certainly. Sorry, but that's the way free enterprise works.



Why can't you have a yearly increase in the salary cap if revenues keep increasing every yet? The salary cap is tied to revenues. If revenues go down, then so does the salary cap. If the league is in trouble (which they're clearly not), then open the books and show the union. The real issue is that small-market teams are in trouble and the big market teams are not, and instead of increasing revenue-sharing, the League wants to take the difference out of the players' pockets.

No one is forcing NFL owners to take the risk that they're taking for guaranteed profit every year. If they're not happy with their return on their investment, then they can sell the team. See how easy this is to work in both directions? No one is paying money to see Jerry Jones's team; they're paying money to see the Dallas Cowboys. No one is paying money so that Bill Bidwill can make money; they're paying to see Larry Fitzgerald.

I hate the college game and can't watch it because the quality is low--even for good teams. I can't tell you the number of fans I've talked to who want no part of players who not only aren't good enough to play in the NFL right now, but also are so bad that they aren't worried about being scabs and being barred from the NFLPA whenever the labor issues are settled.

Except that it isn't how any business model works. Employees dont' get an equal share because they aren't responsible financially. Something goes wrong with the Dallas Cowboys (the team being what the fans come to see) Jerry Jones foots that bill, not Tony Romo. The players union had an opportunity to police it's own during the Michael Vick felony conviction when the Falcons wanted his signing bonus back for breach of contract. If the players union wanted to show that it was willing to be reasonable and work with the owners, it wouldn't have fought the Falcons in the court system so he was granted to keep his 16 million.

The bottom line is that the players union is not reasonable or understanding, they are only concerned with increasing their share of the pie, no matter what. They are not willing to make concessions or even hold their own members accountable.

 

[kerouac9]

K9, you didn't answer question #4 from Bucky. If you are going to split up the pie, you need to be liable for the risks as well as the rewards. I don't see the players agreeing to lower their salaries if the ticket sales are less than expected or if costs like travel, etc go up due to the higher price of gasoline. Wouldn't that be only fair?

Again, 40, the salary cap is a result of total revenue. If total revenue goes down, then so does the salary cap. The players get a lower salary total if ticket revenue goes down.

On the other hand, the NFL is uniquely situation in professional sports because contracts are not guaranteed. I'm sure that labor peace would settle immediately if owners said, "We'll guarantee all your contracts." The NFLPA would immediately settle, probably for the $1.75B share and a reduced percentage.

"The high price of gasoline"? Give me a break.

 

[kerouac9]

Except that it isn't how any business model works. Employees dont' get an equal share because they aren't responsible financially. Something goes wrong with the Dallas Cowboys (the team being what the fans come to see) Jerry Jones foots that bill, not Tony Romo. The players union had an opportunity to police it's own during the Michael Vick felony conviction when the Falcons wanted his signing bonus back for breach of contract. If the players union wanted to show that it was willing to be reasonable and work with the owners, it wouldn't have fought the Falcons in the court system so he was granted to keep his 16 million.

The bottom line is that the players union is not reasonable or understanding, they are only concerned with increasing their share of the pie, no matter what. They are not willing to make concessions or even hold their own members accountable.

Chopper, the employees don't get an equal share now. The owners currently get $1 billion off the top of all revenue, and then split with the players whatever is left, not counting certain things like PSLs, and Loft space, and other things (I think--joe will surely correct me if I'm wrong here).

If Tony Romo goes wrong than he gets cut and gets nothing. If fans stop showing up to Texas Stadium, Jerry Jones still gets the enormous amount of revenue he gets from PSLs (which are ironclad contracts), his sponsorship contracts, and--oh, yeah--that enormous guaranteed TV contract.

Why shouldn't the NFLPA be worried about "their slice of the pie"? Isn't that what the union's job is? They're not willing to make concessions without illustrating that there's a need to. I don't blame them for that.

I'm not sure what Michael Vick's once-in-a-generation example has to do with anything; you're going to have to explain that to me. I think we're talking about some 2000 players.

 

[overseascardfan]

I chose owners for the simple reason that they pay millions to buy a team. They pay for equipment, medical benefits, salaries, travel expenses, hotels, meals, etc. Players making the minimum salary in football, basketball & baseball are making more than most CEO's, so I feel no sympathy for them calling "poverty". They are getting played to play a game, where most people are busting their asses off to make ends meet, and scrape up cash for tickets so that Peyton Manning can get $25M a year? Players claim they take the risk of getting injured, hello people like James Harrison who say they intentionally try to hurt people and that getting fined for hard hits is ridiculous, fellow players are responsible for injuries. Why don't players use that college degree they supposedly earned and get a real job? I bet it will be kind of difficult when you major in basketweaving or physical education.

I feel for us fans but we always have the option of watching or doing something else. Hell that's why I love college football more, kids who play for pride and with more heart for no money, unless they go to U$C.

 

[Buckybird]

Except that it isn't how any business model works. Employees dont' get an equal share because they aren't responsible financially. Something goes wrong with the Dallas Cowboys (the team being what the fans come to see) Jerry Jones foots that bill, not Tony Romo. The players union had an opportunity to police it's own during the Michael Vick felony conviction when the Falcons wanted his signing bonus back for breach of contract. If the players union wanted to show that it was willing to be reasonable and work with the owners, it wouldn't have fought the Falcons in the court system so he was granted to keep his 16 million.

The bottom line is that the players union is not reasonable or understanding, they are only concerned with increasing their share of the pie, no matter what. They are not willing to make concessions or even hold their own members accountable.

Amen Chopper!!! As I said the players have zero risk in the big picture when issues arise.

Let me add this: Just say the Irsays clear $50 mil this year as an organiztion & Peyton Mannings base/bonus' make his annual income an average of $20 mil/yr. 2012 comes & the Irsays profits drop to $30 mil/yr yet Mannings contract stays the same with zero risk!!! Thats the problem in this & that is just 1 player. Am I stupid?

 

[kerouac9]

I chose owners for the simple reason that they pay millions to buy a team. They pay for equipment, medical benefits, salaries, travel expenses, hotels, meals, etc. Players making the minimum salary in football, basketball & baseball are making more than most CEO's, so I feel no sympathy for them calling "poverty". They are getting played to play a game, where most people are busting their asses off to make ends meet, and scrape up cash for tickets so that Peyton Manning can get $25M a year? Players claim they take the risk of getting injured, hello people like James Harrison who say they intentionally try to hurt people and that getting fined for hard hits is ridiculous, fellow players are responsible for injuries. Why don't players use that college degree they supposedly earned and get a real job? I bet it will be kind of difficult when you major in basketweaving or physical education.

I feel for us fans but we always have the option of watching or doing something else. Hell that's why I love college football more, kids who play for pride and with more heart for no money, unless they go to U$C.

Some 19% of Americans will tell you, when polled, that they're in the Top 5 percent of incomes. In this case, you're brutally wrong:

A chief executive officer of a Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 index company was paid, on average, $9.25 million in total compensation in 2009.

In 2010, it means that a player with no credited seasons will receive at least $320,000. For players with one credited season, the minimum salary is $395,000. For players with two credited seasons, the minimum is $470,000. For players with three credited seasons, the minimum is $545,000.

I'm not crying for NFL player salaries, but this is just a dumb argument. People who argue that if players don't like what they're being paid should go work at WalMart are making a stupid argument. I don't understand where the anti-labor sentiment in the United States comes from.

 

[Buckybird]

Chopper, the employees don't get an equal share now.

I wonder how many professions do employees get an equal share of the pie?

 

[kerouac9]

Amen Chopper!!! As I said the players have zero risk in the big picture when issues arise.

Let me add this: Just say the Irsays clear $50 mil this year as an organiztion & Peyton Mannings base/bonus' make his annual income an average of $20 mil/yr. 2012 comes & the Irsays profits drop to $30 mil/yr yet Mannings contract stays the same with zero risk!!! Thats the problem in this & that is just 1 player. Am I stupid?

How can you make a hypothetical like this without having any idea what the Irsays or any other team makes as profit for the year?

The smallest market team in the NFL last year, the Green Bay Packers, posted a $9.8 million operating profit in 2010, a year of historic economic trouble. I'm guessing that Irsay is doing all right for himself.

If he's not, then he shouldn't have any issue with opening up his franchise's books to let the players' union take a look. And if the financial reward of owning an NFL team isn't worth the risk, then he can always sell the franchise. There are far more people interesting in owning an NFL franchise than there are franchises on the market.

 

[kerouac9]

I wonder how many professions do employees get an equal share of the pie?

Probably none. That's why players are comfortable with guaranteeing the owners a first slice, and then splitting up whatever is left. I'm not sure what the argument is here. Why would anyone compare running a Dairy Queen and running a professional sports league? Of what benefit is that comparison?

Additionally to your last point, if Peyton Manning's production isn't equivalent to the financial risk that ownership makes in him, he can be cut and the Irsays won't owe him anything. In how many professions can an employee under contract be fired without cause and receive nothing in return and have no recourse?

 

[Buckybird]

Additionally to your last point, if Peyton Manning's production isn't equivalent to the financial risk that ownership makes in him, he can be cut and the Irsays won't owe him anything. In how many professions can an employee under contract be fired without cause and receive nothing in return and have no recourse?

But many of these guys get up to 1/2 of that contract up front by just signing their names. How many other professions can say that?

 

[40yearfan]

Again, 40, the salary cap is a result of total revenue. If total revenue goes down, then so does the salary cap. The players get a lower salary total if ticket revenue goes down.

On the other hand, the NFL is uniquely situation in professional sports because contracts are not guaranteed. I'm sure that labor peace would settle immediately if owners said, "We'll guarantee all your contracts." The NFLPA would immediately settle, probably for the $1.75B share and a reduced percentage.

"The high price of gasoline"? Give me a break.

K9, you didn't address the question, you talked around it. Will the players union agree to share in the risks as well as the rewards?

Contracts are guaranteed. Both sides know what a contract is worth when they sign it. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[ARodg]

So far as I understand these are the basics.

The Teams in the NFL are considered 32 seperate corporations. They can't do anything to limit player movement such as, salary cap, the draft, etc. under United States anti trust law.

They get an exemption to this law when they come to an agreement with the players union, and that's how teams are allowed to limit salary and where players are allowed to go. For normal business' teams aren't allowed to talk to each other and decide what they're going to pay potential employees like what happens in the NFL.

The union then decertifies taking away this exemption to the United States trust laws, because the NFL can't have an agreement with a Union that doesn't exist.

The owners lock out the players when there's no CBA because FAs could sign with whichever team they want with no regard for the slary cap, as well as the draft becoming illegal. (This year's draft is worked into the current CBA, but next year the draft would be illegal.)

All that said the two sides need to come to an agreement.

The owners want the season to start so that they can go back to making money. The players want the season to start so that they can start getting paid again.

The one thing that can stop a prolonged Lockout is if Judge Doty who kept jurisdiction from the last CBA dispute finds that the union's decertification is fraudulent. I'm doubtful that this will happen, because Doty is a players judge and unions decertify all the time. It is a possibility however because the last time a dispute like this happened the players decertified, got an agreement done and then recertified right away. If the owners can prove that the decertificatiion is fradulent than the players are royally screwed.

The Owners have a couple of advantages, just like the players have a couple of advantages.

The players have the fact that the law is on their side. As cliched as it is that does still mean something. If they can get the motions, and the procedings, and the discoveries done quickly, they will win, and win big.

The owners have the advantage of having the best lawyers money can buy. Between Jones and Rooney, and the other owners they have unlimited money. Maybe this time the players will have better lawyers but last time the owners lawyers crushed the players lawyers.

There's a saying in the legal system, "A bad lawyer can keep a case going for six months, a good lawyer six years, and the best lawyers for eternity."

The owners strategy is and always has been to bleed the players dry. The longer they're not getting paid the more their lavish lifestyles take a toll on their savings. Lawyers are also expensive and the players don't have the same cash that the owners do.

The players problem is that there are morons among them that spend cash by the barrel on their monthly expenses. 3 mansions, 6 cards and 9 kids by 8 different women is expensive.

The biggest problem is probably the fact that the owners have no need for the season to start before the pre season and the players might not want the season to start until midway through training camp.

 

[40yearfan]

Probably none. That's why players are comfortable with guaranteeing the owners a first slice, and then splitting up whatever is left. I'm not sure what the argument is here. Why would anyone compare running a Dairy Queen and running a professional sports league? Of what benefit is that comparison?

Additionally to your last point, if Peyton Manning's production isn't equivalent to the financial risk that ownership makes in him, he can be cut and the Irsays won't owe him anything. In how many professions can an employee under contract be fired without cause and receive nothing in return and have no recourse?

K9, you obviously don't understand contracts. Both sides agree to the terms up front. Everyone knows there is a certain dollar value to any contract. If you don't make your incentives, you don't get the money. If you fail to perform, you are cut. It's all part of the contractural obligation and is spelled out completely.

NFL contracts ARE guaranteed. You have to look at the contract and not listen to what some agent is bragging about.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Some 19% of Americans will tell you, when polled, that they're in the Top 5 percent of incomes. In this case, you're brutally wrong:





I'm not crying for NFL player salaries, but this is just a dumb argument. People who argue that if players don't like what they're being paid should go work at WalMart are making a stupid argument. I don't understand where the anti-labor sentiment in the United States comes from.

I hate unions, but I see the necessity of unions to protect citizens against the excess of the capitalists. Years of the capitalists waging class warfare to turn middle management against the blue collar labor employees has resulted in a total net loss in jobs, lower pay, less benefits, a lower overall standard of living nearly across the board.

I'm just glad that my money won't be touched; working in an industry (military) where ridiculous overspending and excess is the norm, and yet the taxpayers and politicians are afraid to cut anything.

 

[lobo]

A few points and questions during this hiatus

1. Obviously she did not have a no cut contract
2. She was not a first round draft choice
3. Did you give her a private workout.....so to speak!
4. Did you interview her at the combine before you drafted her.
5. Is she a free agent now or did another team pick her up.

 

[40yearfan]

I hate unions, but I see the necessity of unions to protect citizens against the excess of the capitalists. Years of the capitalists waging class warfare to turn middle management against the blue collar labor employees has resulted in a total net loss in jobs, lower pay, less benefits, a lower overall standard of living nearly across the board.

I'm just glad that my money won't be touched; working in an industry (military) where ridiculous overspending and excess is the norm, and yet the taxpayers and politicians are afraid to cut anything.

I don't hate unions Krang and you shouldn't either. Most of them are made up of people just like us trying to protect their interests. If it wasn't for unions in this country, we wouldn't have 40 hour weeks, holidays, vacation time, etc. They essentially created our middle class.

Sometimes unions are shanghied by the radicals or criminal element and it gives all unions a bad name. I fear the radicals are running the NFLPA right now and unless the majority of players steps in to stop it, it will continue to be a problem.

When you are talking about a multi billion dollar pie and only $185 million seperates the two sides, I see no reason to not continue to negotiate.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I don't hate unions Krang and you shouldn't either. Most of them are made up of people just like us trying to protect their interests. If it wasn't for unions in this country, we wouldn't have 40 hour weeks, holidays, vacation time, etc. They essentially created our middle class.

Sometimes unions are shanghied by the radicals or criminal element and it gives all unions a bad name. I fear the radicals are running the NFLPA right now and unless the majority of players steps in to stop it, it will continue to be a problem.

When you are talking about a multi billion dollar pie and only $185 million seperates the two sides, I see no reason to not continue to negotiate.

Oh, I understand the created the middle class and all the benefits we have as a society, but I see the excess they created that have harmed us all as well. IMO I'd like to see more federal legislation protecting unions, but at the same time protecting ownership as well. No way in hell did any auto plant worker deserve to get paid $40 bucks/hour for putting a widget on a minivan. That's assinine, and it's been a part of the reason America has hemorrhaged jobs from manufacturing over the past thirty years.

But I also see that the push to always increase the profit margin has also been a detriment to average American. Corporations want to see ever increasing profit margins at the expense of American labor. You don't see this push in Europe or Asia, and IMO it's been extremely harmful to the average American.

I blame the ownership, they created the last CBA, the players were ok with it, and the owners are the ones causing this. Those are the facts; if the owners hadn't locked out, we would be talking about free agency right now, not who is to blame for this labor dispute. Additionally we all know what the players make, but I can't trust the owners when they won't even reciprocate. Open the books so that the public opinion can have a more balanced view of what's really going on.

 

[ARodg]

I blame the ownership, they created the last CBA, the players were ok with it, and the owners are the ones causing this. Those are the facts; if the owners hadn't locked out, we would be talking about free agency right now, not who is to blame for this labor dispute. Additionally we all know what the players make, but I can't trust the owners when they won't even reciprocate. Open the books so that the public opinion can have a more balanced view of what's really going on.

They opened the books to the union for the past 5 years, since the last CBA was established. Something that they didn't have to do. The reality of the situation is that AS soon as Smith was hired this was going to court. Smith knew that they would get a better deal in court.

The owners made a very reasonable offer, and the players rejected it out of hand. I don't see how this is the owners fault.

 

[ReddBird]

I'm with every owner that never asked/demanded a penny of taxpayer money (stadium, tax breaks, any of it) to increase their profitability.

Those are the only owners I support. For the other ones: If they already have their hands on my wallet, they don't need to be picking the pockets of the players, too.

 

[slanidrac16]

The fault of this lies at the hands of the owners though I side with their reasoning. The current model was unsustainable, and the owners caved the last time this came up. They had to make a stand sometime and this was as good of time as any.

The players were prepared for litigation as soon as they hired a rep who had no stake in professional football. The moment they did this a work stoppage was inevitable.

Someone needs to explain simple business to these players. Owners have more of the risk, more money invested, and therefore get the majority of the profits. The players are employees and nothing more. They don't build stadiums, they don't manage personnel, and they don't feel the financial windfall when sales are down. Yet somewhere along the line they have gotten the idea that they are special, and they really aren't.

This should have happened during the last negotiation so it is the owners fault for putting themselves in this position in the first place, but it is the players that really need some perspective.

How in the world are the owners "at risk"? Many teams have stadiums built for them with OUR dollars. They receive MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars from tv revenue. Concessions, tickets, gear, parking luxury suites, advertising and more.

Risk? They have a legal license to steal!. And it goes both ways. I've seen people write, "Let the player's get different jobs."

Well how about this. If there is such a "crisis" for team owners why don't they just sell the team? I would bet you'd have people lining up to buy them.

 

[DoTheDew]

I don't hate unions Krang and you shouldn't either. Most of them are made up of people just like us trying to protect their interests. If it wasn't for unions in this country, we wouldn't have 40 hour weeks, holidays, vacation time, etc. They essentially created our middle class.

This is slightly revisionist history. The work week in America was gradually shortening over time before Unions ever started pushing for it. Increases in worker productivity due to the industrial revolution is what drove work weeks down. All unions did is make it more difficult for those who would willingly work more hours for a single company to do so. In almost all circumstances, unions are good for those who work in them and bad for everyone else. They cause barriers of entry to employment in their specific industries, drive up input costs, and thus final product costs for the consumer.

Ultimately the purpose of any individual union is to gain more benefits and wages for its workers, which is fine, but that is a direct trade off to the consumer, not the employer, in the long run. So sure, we shouldn't hate unions, but we do need to understand that unless we are in the specific union that is gaining something, we are ultimately losing something.

 

[DoTheDew]

IF the offer that the NFL is claiming it put on the table is accurate, I side with the owners. I believe Gene Upshaw would have agreed to that deal.

 

[Chopper0080]

How in the world are the owners "at risk"? Many teams have staiums built for them with OUR dollars. They receive MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars from tv revenue. Concessions, tickets, gear, parking luxury suites, advertising and more.

Risk? They have a legal license to steal!. And it goes both ways. I've seen people write, "Let the player's get different jobs."

Well how about this. If there is such a "crisis" for team owners why don't they just sell the team? I would bet you'd have people lining up to buy them.

The owners own all of the liability for the team. If the economy breaks down, the owners are the ones who are responsible for addressing all of the financial costs. They pay the bonuses for the Ryan Leaf's that are drafted. They pay out the guaranteed money that is remaining on contracts if the player gets hurt. They pay out for any lawsuits that are submitted against the team by employees or consumers.

As far as people lining up to buy teams, I am guessing that you don't understand the sheer amount of money and assets that are required to buy a professional team. Very few people in this country have that.

 

[slanidrac16]

This is slightly revisionist history. The work week in America was gradually shortening over time before Unions ever started pushing for it. Increases in worker productivity due to the industrial revolution is what drove work weeks down. All unions did is make it more difficult for those who would willingly work more hours for a single company to do so. In almost all circumstances, unions are good for those who work in them and bad for everyone else. They cause barriers of entry to employment in their specific industries, drive up input costs, and thus final product costs for the consumer.

Ultimately the purpose of any individual union is to gain more benefits and wages for its workers, which is fine, but that is a direct trade off to the consumer, not the employer, in the long run. So sure, we shouldn't hate unions, but we do need to understand that unless we are in the specific union that is gaining something, we are ultimately losing something.

Let's stop comparing the normal union/employer situation with the NFL union/ownner situation. Antitrust benefits are huge and are essential for the league to operate as it does. Could you imagine a non union league? It would essentially be a fantasy football league. Each year teams would sign players to one year contract at whatever price each party deemed acceptable.

Unions are essential in todays world. They are basically legal representation for the average worker to attain fair wages, a safe work place vacation and family time etc. Without a "contract" ( I am a meat manager in a huge grocery chain) they could cancel my accrued vacation time, lower my wages etc, for the sake of profit and shareholders. And trust me they would. As more and more non union workers keep getting screwed for the sake of profits, shareholder's and CEO salaries and bonuses, the more it will eventually sink in the need to organize.

Yes , unions abused their power over the years, especially the UAW, and a few others. That doesn't make unions bad. Poor union management made THEIR unions bad.
Remember this the next time someone say's " That damn electrician makes $30 bucks an hour " has an affect on the wage of the non-union electrician in a positive way.