NFLPA Said --VS--NFL/Owners Said

[Happy Panther]

I love that folks still compare NFL players to your typical accountant. The relationship between the NFL & players is unique and really can't be compared to any other industry. Really they are in a partnership.

[CarolinaBlue34]

Nothing but greed.

[Lords0fPain]

I love that folks still compare NFL players to your typical accountant. The relationship between the NFL & players is unique and really can't be compared to any other industry. Really they are in a partnership.

Please, elaborate why you feel players are special. If they don't like how they are treated they can shop their skills elsewhere (like every other American). Is it because they play on T.V.? I guess the news anchors/reporters, wrestlers and movie actors are partners, as well? Someone tell Vince McMahon (btw I hate this guy, but its HIS business) all his wrestlers are now partners, see how far that goes...

I really don't see a difference from any other owner/employee relationship. If anything, one could argue they are form of subcontractor, that is still not a partner.

[mountainpantherfan]

I love that folks still compare NFL players to your typical accountant. The relationship between the NFL & players is unique and really can't be compared to any other industry. Really they are in a partnership.

Then they should begin to act more like partners and less like employees. There is 1696 active players in the NFL at any one time with probably another 200 or so on injuried reserve by years end. If the relationship between owners and players truely is a business partnership why isn't the percentage of revenues split equally among all of the members of the player partnership? Or at the very lest shouldn't the player's decide amoung themselves how their share would be split, not the owners?

And if their on the field play is truely as much of an investment as the owners financial investment, shouldn't every player who ever played continue to get an equal share of the yearly percentage?

Players don't want to be seen as partners with the owners. They want to be employees because every law that really benefits them is written in regards to them being employees or a unionized work force. They want to be employees because they don't want to share their earnings with other players past or present.

If the players were willing to accept a true partnership, I would support them entirely. But what they have constantly put out is that they want to be seen and protected as employees of the NFL and in addition to that, give us all the benefits of a partnership.

[MadHatter]

I love that folks still compare NFL players to your typical accountant. The relationship between the NFL & players is unique and really can't be compared to any other industry. Really they are in a partnership.

Bullshit.

You have the financial understanding of a toddler.

The players have not purchased a share of the team....they are NOT partners.

NFL Players to the NFL are no different than consultants to a consulting firm.

Please actually have a basic understanding of business, finance, etc... before you open your mouth. Your analogies and statements are so far off base that you are showing your true colors....you are nothing but a child in a man's game.

[JawnyBlaze]

Well, after reading the outlandish "partner" line I was all ready to make a lengthy commentary on how ridiculous that is. But others have already done a well enough job, so all I'll say is bravo Lords0fPain, mountainpantherfan and MadHatter.

[carolinashawn]

I love that folks still compare NFL players to your typical accountant. The relationship between the NFL & players is unique and really can't be compared to any other industry. Really they are in a partnership.

Give me a break! If they are a "partnership" then the players should also share in ALL the expenses and investments as well, not just the profits.

[Mvp2014]

definitely not a partnership. You could argue that the players are a product and definitely deserve a much larger percentage than that of an employee. I still dont understand why they think they are entitled to half of the earnings of a business that these old guys have dumped hundreds of millions and maybe billions of dollars into. These guys should be happy that they live better than anyone they know and just be thankful.

[chef17]

definitely not a partnership. You could argue that the players are a product and definitely deserve a much larger percentage than that of an employee. I still dont understand why they think they are entitled to half of the earnings of a business that these old guys have dumped hundreds of millions and maybe billions of dollars into. These guys should be happy that they live better than anyone they know and just be thankful.

Because those old guys agreed to give them half.

[Mvp2014]

Because those old guys agreed to give them half.

I think its a 60-40 or 50-50 split AFTER the first billion goes to the owners, still a great deal for the players. Especially now that player safety is a top priority and so much research is now focused on concussions and long term effects. If the NFLPA gets more money it should go to the warriors from past decades, not D Smith and all these lawyers that made this so impossible in the first place.

[chef17]

I think its a 60-40 or 50-50 split AFTER the first billion goes to the owners, still a great deal for the players. Especially now that player safety is a top priority and so much research is now focused on concussions and long term effects. If the NFLPA gets more money it should go to the warriors from past decades, not D Smith and all these lawyers that made this so impossible in the first place.

I agree the players have it good. I just don't understand placing all the blame on the players. If the owners never agreed to give them that much in the first place we wouldn't be in this.

[MadHatter]

I agree the players have it good. I just don't understand placing all the blame on the players. If the owners never agreed to give them that much in the first place we wouldn't be in this.

So...because the owners were willing to give in temporarily for the good of the game (to keep football being played), they should never be able to negotiate a more fair deal?

Most fuged up logic I have ever heard.

[chef17]

So...because the owners were willing to give in temporarily for the good of the game (to keep football being played), they should never be able to negotiate a more fair deal?

Most fuged up logic I have ever heard.

Might want to work on your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say anything about being able to negotiate a deal. I said I don't understand placing all the blame on the players when the owners agreed to the deal. Please explain to me how that says they should never be able to negotiate a more fair deal.

[chef17]

fug the players. They had absolutely no intention of trying to negotiate....and we knew this when Smith was named head.

The owners put forth a very good deal....conceding on the 18 game season...set up payments for past players....splitting the difference on the amount to come off the top.

The players always intended on decertifying and suing.

I hope this drags out a long time....let's see these greedy ass players make a living bagging groceries (the only non-football skillset most of them have).

They have been planning for this for years (as several players said). They knew the deal the owners signed before wasy absolutely agregious and would be opted out of.

This has been the plan all along...fug them....I hope they and their families damn near starve to death. MAybe then they will realize just how unbelievably good they really had it.

BTW hoping the families of players starve over something that they have no control over is some pretty fuged up logic.