The New Yorker piece is, in fact, an opinion piece. You don't need to agree, but I don't think you can just write off the opinion of a financial journalist of Surowiecki's pedigree because he's not a "football guy."
Brandt's piece is more straight reporting, laying out some basic facts of the prior CBA and the areas of contention in the present negotiations, concluding with a suggestion of an avenue through which compromise could be reached.
I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that anything he says contradicts the players' argument, or in any way indicates support of for the owners. I think his article is instructive in how it sidesteps the rhetoric of both sides, and shows that there are areas for compromise that neither side is publicly acknowledging.