Because some people (well, just you, really) are acting as if the main overarching concern he has with every decision is profits. That is false.
Then was is the 'main overarching concern he has with every decision'? Since you are the one who created this phenomena that there is one, please fill me in.
His priority is making money for the owners. The fact that there are other considerations doesn't change that. And your strawman argument that anyone has suggested there are not other considerations is silly.
Just read the bylaws, and look at some of his decisions. E.g., how did it help the NFL economically to take away our draft pick for spygate?
You are joking right? Are you seriously saying that for his primary concern to be profitablility that he should sit in a room and do nothing except generate money, and ignore every other facet of his job?
However, ULTIMATELY his decision to take away our draft pick was based upon punishing the appearance of an unfair advantage, in order to protect the image of hte league, thereby enhancing (or at least guarding) its image in order to ultimately make more money.
No, moral and other concerns about the NFL are also sometimes central (e.g., Rapistburger suspension).
The only moral concern is protecting the image of the league. It is not his job to preach morality to the players in the NFL. It is his job to protect the image of the league.
Even so, if he was making moral based decisions that still doesnt mean his primary function isnt making money for the owners.
Somehow this discussion has gone from me saying that his job is to make money for the owners, to you saying I said every task he has is about making money. My job is to make money for my company. But there are many times I must do things that don't make money (compliance, planning for the future, training, hiring or firing) that don't make money but are part of an overall philosophy that the purpose of the company is to make money. Hopefully you get that.
Things are not so one-dimensional.
Strawman. I never said they were.
That said, I have never ever seen you admit you were wrong, or unclear in expression, on this site, so I don't expect it now. :singing:
This is an interesting and curious comment.
98% of discussion on this board is OPINION. No opinion is wrong. Your opinion could be that George Bush (selected to emphasize the point) is the greatest US President ever. We could debate endlessly about that. You would explain all of the criteria you used to make that judgment and I could explain all of the criteria why my opinion differs. Since it is an OPINION no one is right or wrong and it would be ridiculous for someone to 'admit they were wrong'. If a convincing argument were made, perhaps one or the other would change their opinion, but that does not mean their opinion was wrong. Of course in this type of forum that would be extremely rare just because of the confines of communication. To expect someone to 'admit they are wrong' about their opinion is a bizarre expectation.
Facts are facts, and everyone is wrong about facts from time to time. I would contend that I have admitted I was wrong about a fact every time I posted one that was wrong. However, I am diligent in looking up facts before I post, so it is a rare occurance.
Since oyur implication here is that you are open-minded and I am stubborn, please give me a few examples of when yuo have 'admitted you were wrong' about an opinion. That should end this one way or another.