Sources: NFLPA orders draft boycott

[csx]

owners wont be paying more for the scabs than the current stars, simply wont happen

[Seamonk]

The problem is the NFLPA has a lawyer as their head. Not a player. He is trying to lawyer everything out and win where he can. The thing is.. the guy doesn't realize how much different the players are from himself.

I don't hate the players, I hate DeMaurice Smith. Trying to use every loophole he can, not to win.. but to prolong something no one wants.

I also hate the greed of the players. Getting paid for playing is one thing, but for other poo... na uh. If the players think they need more money, they need to go learn how to play baseball or learn some accounting. Majority of these players probably don't even know what a savings account is. John Kasay is lucky to be our player rep. I believe he's been quoted by Steve Smith as to telling him how to become a Professional with his money and other life commitments that include investments for the future. Regarding that, that's probably the reason Jerry Richardson, Big Cat, is so involved in this. He knows first hand what it means to invest your money properly after becoming a player. If I were him, I'd be sickened too.

There's a reason the Owners have most of the money.. It's because they won't be filing for bankruptcy anytime soon.

[Swarly]

"Hey Green Bay Packer players, you shouldn't participate in post-game interviews/trophy photos to help boycott the NFL."

This is how I see the players right now. They're trying to take away one of the biggest/best moments of a professional athletes career. PATHETIC.

[Mvp2014]

This sounds like a stupid DeMaurice Smith thing, not a players-as-a-whole thing.

All of that leadership that has these players fooled whether its d smith or peyton manning and drew brees. These owners are ready for a lockout and I say bring on the replacements, the players will come back once payday is here.

[stirs]

Again. Why should the NFL and their networks profit from the players appearance?

The players are free to contract their appearances with a different network. Once the NFL network announces the pick, the players network can present the player with a hat and celebrate with the family.

Just curious, which one will you watch? LOL I'll be watching the players.

You guys blindly support the NFL monopoly....the NFL has no competition from other leagues

(MLB screwed themselves, the NFL has risen to the top because they have marketed to their audience and promoted themselves well)

and they make money off of the (players)..(what is different about this with any business in the US, all businesses profit through the marketing and making of a product, dumb argument)..

now the players have the opportunity to collect....next the players will have an opportunity to sell "their" names to athletic wear companies and be paid for "their" names on NFL team club jerseys, then maybe players can get paid for "their" likenesses represented in Madden games. (All this time, i thought Peyton Manning was earing over a hundred million a year on endorsements for himself, you have now implied he is making this money for the league)

Again. I think it's hilarious.

Answers above embedded.

Sorry, at work

You think it is funny. A true fan of the game.

[riddel]

The best part of the draft is being in New York and walking across that stage for these kids. Handing them a hat on Skype in their living room is hardly the same thing.

The players get paid for their likeness by the very fact they are playing in the NFL. The NFL's revenue comes from these players likeness.

That is why the NFL can afford to pay them huge salaries. They get paid for their likeness by drawing a salary that the rest of us can only dream of. If they want to sell their own likeness they would have to take a huge paycut.

Also it wwould fug up things like Madden, etc because certain players wouldn't be included in the game.

Like MJ wasn't in NBA video games and Bonds wasn't in MLB games.

Not having certain players in the video games would lead to another dip in revenues. So they would have to cut player salaries some more.

So they do get paid for their likeness. Bull poo.

Because Michael Jordan owned his own rights, he became the RICHEST player in any sport during his time and he continues to profit from his name.

Yeah, it would suck for all of us if players regain ownership of their name, but hey, that's what the owners pushed for. They want to use the players names to build their league and cut the players profit sharing without showing financial hardship....it does suck, but this isn't a popularity contest...this is business and the players now have the right to pursue the profits from their names...

[SOJA]

oh poo

[riddel]

Answers above embedded.

Sorry, at work

You think it is funny. A true fan of the game.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the circumstances when they are ridiculous....2 sides fighting over $9 billion is a joke....I'm not going to jump off a cliff....it's just a game.....

My son's highschool football games are more entertaining and just the other day I watched a bunch of drunk college springbreakers play tackle beach football and found it every bit as entertaining as the NFL. Guys were bleeding and crawling off the field while having the time of their lives....that's what it's all about...I don't need the NFL...the game of football wasn't created by the NFL and it won't die with the NFL.....

[teeray]

Because Michael Jordan owned his own rights, he became the RICHEST player in any sport during his time and he continues to profit from his name.

Yeah, it would suck for all of us if players regain ownership of their name, but hey, that's what the owners pushed for. They want to use the players names to build their league and cut the players profit sharing without showing financial hardship....it does suck, but this isn't a popularity contest...this is business and the players now have the right to pursue the profits from their names...

In the process it severely damaged the NBA and MLB as a whole.

And they were willing to show their finances over the last 5 years since the new CBA has been in effect. They NFLPA wanted 10 years because they new it wouldn't be granted so they could dissolve and try to fool people with a PR campaign of transparency. Which was obvious bullsh*t.

Again I was on board with most of the players issues. But now they have exposed themselves as being insincere so now I question everything they do.

[CatMan72]

Is this the kind of "good faith" the NFLPA said the owner's were not exhibiting?

I feel really sorry for these young men who will be pressured into doing this and deprived once in a lifetime opportunity. Long after this CBA issue is resolved, these young men will wish they had their moment on that stage... especially our # 1 overall pick.

[riddel]

In the process it severely damaged the NBA and MLB as a whole.

And they were willing to show their finances over the last 5 years since the new CBA has been in effect. They NFLPA wanted 10 years because they new it wouldn't be granted so they could dissolve and try to fool people with a PR campaign of transparency. Which was obvious bullsh*t.

Again I was on board with most of the players issues. But now they have exposed themselves as being insincere so now I question everything they do.

I do not mean to insult you with this comment, but I don't think you understand why the union had to decertify. The owners were going to lock the players out once the CBA expired. Once the CBA expired the players would have to wait for 6 months to decertify. The only way the players could decertify and have an opportunity to BLOCK the lockout was to decertify. By decertifying the players very well may have SAVED the NFL season, because a judge is most likely going to reinstate the 2010 CBA, while the antitrust lawsuits take place. Meaning the NFL will play football as we know it in 2011 and probably 2012, 2013. The lawsuits very well may change the face of the NFL, but it was not the players choice to do this. The owners opted out of the CBA and they pushed for the lockout. The players simply did what they had to do to prevent a lockout and replacement players.

It comes down to the fact that the NFL didn't prove financial hardship. If they had, then the players union would have never pushed this thing to an antitrust lawsuit. The only reason they would be pursuing these lawsuits is because they have PROOF that they can win. It's WAY too big of a gamble and they wouldn't throw it all away, if they didn't know the NFL was no bargaining in good faith, when it comes to their loses.

[Seamonk]

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the circumstances when they are ridiculous....2 sides fighting over $9 billion is a joke....I'm not going to jump off a cliff....it's just a game.....

My son's highschool football games are more entertaining and just the other day I watched a bunch of drunk college springbreakers play tackle beach football and found it every bit as entertaining as the NFL. Guys were bleeding and crawling off the field while having the time of their lives....that's what it's all about...I don't need the NFL...the game of football wasn't created by the NFL and it won't die with the NFL.....

For someone who does not care and thinks it's just a game you seem to be taking sides and posting on the issue quite a lot.

and to think the NFL used to be similar to how you describe other "fun" ways of playing football.. until rule changes to the PLAYERS benefit and ways to protect the player were implemented. The game has already edged to Two hand touch.. it's no wonder why fans are clueless as to why players have difficulty understanding how much the game has changed for them already. I wish I could get paid to play flag football.

[Brooklyn Bully]

You have to just laugh at the Panthers luck. First they have a terrible season, then they lose out on Andrew Luck, then the rest of the Draft is pretty weak and they probably can't trade down, then a lockout comes, and now no one will be at the Draft.

Classic.

[Udogg]

Not sure I understand - you fault the owners for going through a negotiating process and making concessions too late? You think that if this (meaning the latest) proposal was on the table two weeks ago the players wouldnt have decertified? I really do not agree at all.

More like I believe that the Owners came in with an initial proposal so far out of bounds that negotiations were set back because of it. To me it's like negotiating with someone for a 20 dollar item and you start off at 1 dollar. You are so far out of bounds the other side can't really even put in a counter proposal.