Football fans support players over owners, poll shows.

[lamafist]

Of the 1,533 surveyed who describe themselves as “a big fan of the NFL” 45.9% say they are on the players side and only 19.5% on the owners side.

I'm honestly surprised by this. An informal poll on this message board had the owners favored over the players 39% to 29%. I would have assumed we would have been more representative of the population of "big NFL fans" than that.

 

[sbpatfan]

I'm not surprised at all. People don't own Robert Kraft jerseys. You can be a huge fan of the NFL and have no idea what this lockout is even about. And I bet the majority of people are like that, including myself. I'm not siding with any particular side, I just don't care about the lockout specifics.

 

[Sciz]

Was this poll fairly recent? I sensed that the overwhelming majority was in favor of the owners, but can see how the letter that the NFLPA sent could change that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I'm honestly surprised by this. An informal poll on this message board had the owners favored over the players 39% to 29%. I would have assumed we would have been more representative of the population of "big NFL fans" than that.

I'm not surprised...

Relatively few fans are wasting their time with the details.

The poll might as well have asked "do you support millionaires over billionaires, or billionaires over millionaires."

In any such poll I'd expect those with the lower income to gain the upper hand with the public.

 

[BlitzFritz]

I initially supported the owners. However as more facts have emerged, I have come to the (personal conclusion) that the owners are playing hardball and staking out an *extreme* initial position with the hopes of negotiating "a really good deal" from there.

1. their opening bid was an extra $1B and a significant players percentage reduction
2. they negotiated tv contract rights to protect them for a lock out
3. they keep saying - lets do a deal, there will be a season etc
4. they wont do an open book negotiation.
(5. these guys are all hard nosed business men, i believe they want to make sure they get the best deal, not the fairest - personal opinion)

the players are left with a problem. a really lousy deal in aggregate terms for their members. or a lockout, which will crumble by october when most players will need the $$. so they go to the courts to try to turn the tables and exert leverage on the owners. they get the tv contract exposed and put in escrow (i think). they decertify and try to invoke anti-trust.

depending on how the legal maneuvers work out, both sides will sit down again and agree to a deal. the legal outcomes will decide if the final deal is close to what the owners put on the table recently, or a lot more player friendly.

in all of this, i have come to the conclusion that the owners couldnt resist playing hardball. (and maybe i couldnt either. i played hardball when i bought my house because the numbers were so big, it just made sense).

-- FRITZ

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I initially supported the owners. However as more facts have emerged, I have come to the (personal conclusion) that the owners are playing hardball and staking out an *extreme* initial position with the hopes of negotiating "a really good deal" from there.

1. their opening bid was an extra $1B and a significant players percentage reduction
2. they negotiated tv contract rights to protect them for a lock out
3. they keep saying - lets do a deal, there will be a season etc
4. they wont do an open book negotiation.
(5. these guys are all hard nosed business men, i believe they want to make sure they get the best deal, not the fairest - personal opinion)

the players are left with a problem. a really lousy deal in aggregate terms for their members. or a lockout, which will crumble by october when most players will need the $$. so they go to the courts to try to turn the tables and exert leverage on the owners. they get the tv contract exposed and put in escrow (i think). they decertify and try to invoke anti-trust.

depending on how the legal maneuvers work out, both sides will sit down again and agree to a deal. the legal outcomes will decide if the final deal is close to what the owners put on the table recently, or a lot more player friendly.

in all of this, i have come to the conclusion that the owners couldnt resist playing hardball. (and maybe i couldnt either. i played hardball when i bought my house because the numbers were so big, it just made sense).

-- FRITZ

If they were around, you might want to ask the dozens of bankrupt auto and steel companies about what happens when you don't play hard nose vs "keep the gravy train going".

The reality is we don't know what the league business plans are and the players don't have a method of evaluating future plans. They have "give us the financials".

Until there is a framework for determining what is the owners need financially going forward; all we will have is he said/she said.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I blame Miguel on Facebook for this

 

[signbabybrady]

I was on the fence when this started as I could care less which group beat the other into more money as long as the game wasnt effected.

But from the little I have followed of this I am leaning toward the owners as I am not a big fan of the NFLPAs tactics to decertify and sue. Seems to me like this should be done at a negotiating table and not in courts. Not to mention it kind of annoys me as who the hell gets to sue their boss to be paid more or vice versa who gets to sue over potentially not having wage increase as much as it could have, would have, or should have. Also the Draft boycott is just stupid. As first they are declining one large commercial for themselves just to slightly effect the NFLs huge enormous self ad. But more importantly they are annoying the fan just to take a small dig at the owners.

You could argue that the owners took some ugly tactics too in the way they tried to create the nest egg with the TV deal but while that clearly benefited the owners it would in the end help the players too because it would allow the NFL to stay strong during the lockout and would allow it to have the ability to bounce right back. Of course a lot of that money would have stayed in the owners pockets but some of it would likely have been used to protect the game during the lockout.

In the end I think the players should have to take the owners deal and the owners should have to take the players deal and all the money left in the middle should go to me err I mean the fans in the form of cheaper tickets and merchandise until the next CBA and they can try again to come up with a deal that works for both sides. Basically if %10 of past money is left on the table than there is a %10 sale of all NFL product for the life of the new CBA and no price increase allowed.

 

[McCourty Island]

I was on the fence when this started as I could care less which group beat the other into more money as long as the game wasnt effected.

But from the little I have followed of this I am leaning toward the owners as I am not a big fan of the NFLPAs tactics to decertify and sue. Seems to me like this should be done at a negotiating table and not in courts. Not to mention it kind of annoys me as who the hell gets to sue their boss to be paid more or vice versa who gets to sue over potentially not having wage increase as much as it could have, would have, or should have. Also the Draft boycott is just stupid. As first they are declining one large commercial for themselves just to slightly effect the NFLs huge enormous self ad. But more importantly they are annoying the fan just to take a small dig at the owners.

You could argue that the owners took some ugly tactics too in the way they tried to create the nest egg with the TV deal but while that clearly benefited the owners it would in the end help the players too because it would allow the NFL to stay strong during the lockout and would allow it to have the ability to bounce right back. Of course a lot of that money would have stayed in the owners pockets but some of it would likely have been used to protect the game during the lockout.

In the end I think the players should have to take the owners deal and the owners should have to take the players deal and all the money left in the middle should go to me err I mean the fans in the form of cheaper tickets and merchandise until the next CBA and they can try again to come up with a deal that works for both sides. Basically if %10 of past money is left on the table than there is a %10 sale of all NFL product for the life of the new CBA and no price increase allowed.

I don't believe the players ever asked or demanded a raise. They are suing because since they are no longer a union the NFL shouldn't be allowed to do some things like trade players, have a salary cap, or draft players. In the real world your boss can't trade you to another company across the country against your will.

 

[signbabybrady]

I don't believe the players ever asked or demanded a raise. They are suing because since they are no longer a union the NFL shouldn't be allowed to do some things like trade players, have a salary cap, or draft players. In the real world your boss can't trade you to another company across the country against your will.

Please its not really about that. They are just losing that as a threat. They are more than happy to accept that as long as their pay continues to grow at the same rates. It was the only way they could get hand and I find it dirty. To me I read as a sign that the owners is position is right and the players are grasping at anything to keep a foothold and threatening the way the league operates is IMO dirty. The owners are being dirty with the money that comes in but not with the sport itself. I get the greedy money grab but dont drag what I am really interested in into the equation which is what the players have done and thus they have lost me a little.

 

[townes]

Good to see that most fans realize that the owners are the ones killing football out of unmitigated greed. The Direct TV deal shows the owners simply cannot be trusted and at this point I wouldn't blame the players if they responded to the owners with a refusal to negotiate any concessions whatsoever.

The players were willing to deal but the owners were out to crush them, good for the players for standing up for themselves. Jeff Pash is a world class scumbag.

 

[plk]

I initially supported the owners. However as more facts have emerged, I have come to the (personal conclusion) that the owners are playing hardball and staking out an *extreme* initial position with the hopes of negotiating "a really good deal" from there.

Me too. Initially, I thought that a fair number of the owners could make a case that they needed more money. The owner's determination to not open their books has led me to the conclusion that they are already making a lot of money and are greedy for more.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Me too. Initially, I thought that a fair number of the owners could make a case that they needed more money. The owner's determination to not open their books has led me to the conclusion that they are already making a lot of money and are greedy for more.

So why weren't the players greedy in 2006 for taking more money?

I wouldn't give them the info either. Until they display the ability to analyze it, it's a waste of time.

How have the player's demonstrated the ability to project expenses, capital expenditures, revenue growth ect.......for the future?

They can talk about needing health benefits.

 

[plk]

I wouldn't give them the info either. Until they display the ability to analyze it, it's a waste of time.

Sorry, but that is really thick. The players have already hired accountants to analyze the data if they ever get it.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm honestly surprised by this. An informal poll on this message board had the owners favored over the players 39% to 29%. I would have assumed we would have been more representative of the population of "big NFL fans" than that.

No surprise there, particularly with the Doty ruling.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Purely anecdotal but of my friends who are hardcore NFL fans, those who are more conservative are siding with the owners while the more moderate to liberal folks are siding with the players. Kind of interesting.

 

[townes]

Purely anecdotal but of my friends who are hardcore NFL fans, those who are more conservative are siding with the owners while the more moderate to liberal folks are siding with the players. Kind of interesting.

It's because the issue has broken down on political lines, with the right siding with ownership and the left with labor.

 

[lamafist]

It's because the issue has broken down on political lines, with the right siding with ownership and the left with labor.

If this were the case, wouldn't you expect the majority of football fans to side with the ownership? After all, the country is fairly evenly split in terms of political leaning, and one would imagine that demographically, football fans would skew conservative. I mean, it's known that football fans skew male to some degree, and that men skew conservative. Just a thought.

Also, if you think about it, the normal left/right breakdown on management vs. labor shouldn't really apply here. The conservative beef with labor unions is that they obstruct free trade, and shield the workforce from correcting at the hands of market forces. But in the NFL, the ownership is no more aligned with free trade than the unions; revenue sharing amongst competitors, a randomized means of allocating employees and an artificial salary cap are examples of 'central planning' shielding the league from market forces.

So, theoretically, conservatives should no more endorse the league's management and ownership than the union.

 

[Rob0729]

The fact of the matter is the players had a good week in the PR wars. A week ago, the owners were winning these polls mighty handily. The Goodell letter has been a good PR win for the players. Next week the tide could change. The public is fickle (look at Charlie Sheen who went from drugged out, out of control narcissist to rockstar god who sells out concerts in minutes and gets standing ovations on Jimmy Kimmel in the public's opinion within a week's or two time).

Also, unlike other polls, this poll only asked the respondents to choose one or the other while previous polls allowed respondents to choose both sides if being wrong. It would be interesting to see how the former polls would have come out if respondents had to choose one or the other and how this poll allowed the respondents to choose both. I have no idea how they would come out, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[eagle eye]

This taking sides is ridiculous. If the fans came out in unison blaming both sides then something might get done quickly. The owners won't open the books, the NFLPA won't budge without that happening. Thats the crux of the matter so both sides are at fault here.