The Players will prevail in the end of all of this. The owners are the reason we wont be watching football come september. They are the ones who opted out and refuse to furnish proof for the reason they themselves provided.
The longest nfl career imaginable would be a little over 20+ years. You can be an owner till death. Keep this in mind. Players need to maximize earning potential. The Players have never asked for more money, this is fact.
The NFL is the most popular sport in North America, you have to question the owners when they say their profits are being cut into by expenses. They have shown to be less than forthright already, why would anyone take their word for it. These men did not become as rich and powerful as they are by not chopping a few heads along the way.
Sorry, but thinking that the Players are going to prevail in this is just silly.
First off, the owners did not need a reason to opt out of the previous CBA. And they have a reason. It wasn't financially supportable going further.
Secondly, no, you don't have to question owners when they say that profits are being cut into by expenses. One only needs to look at the Green Bay financials to see that is the case.
Third, the players said they wanted pro-rated pay raises if the league went to an 18 game schedule. That sure as hell is asking for more money. No matter how you look at it.
But lets address some things that the players are asking for:
Compensation for the 200 players who were "adversely affected by a change in free agency rules".
Hmm.. seems like they want more money.
A return of 320 M in benefits that they lost due to the uncapped 2010 season.
Hmm.. seems like they want more money.
All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980′s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago.
This has got to be the biggest line of BS that they've spewed. The proposal would take away the financial benefits of free agency?? WHAT.. Sorry.. no it wouldn't.
I notice that they didn't bother to mention anything about what Moody's projections for costs were going to be. And they ignored numerous things that the players had been asking for and got.
Last I looked, negotiations meant that both sides had to give.. So far, I only see the owners giving and the players saying "It's not enough."
Also, it was clear that the league wanted to use the last offer as a new starting point, yet the players couldn't be bothered to see it like that. They just said, "To hell with it" and de-certified when they could have asked for another extension.