The NFL lockout that will likely begin on March 4 will not end quickly or gracefully. The owners — or prime evildoers in this saga — all run franchises valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the Detroit Lions, who at 0−16 in 2008 had almost as many problems as Bear Stearns that year, were reportedly valued at $917 million. In this struggle between owners and players, the owners are asking for more money, more games and for the players to sacrifice their bodies even more than they already do. The players want the same deal as that which already exists: The same number of games, plus financial accountability from the owners.
How is this happening? Are the owners that greedy? Are they that unconcerned with the health and safety of their players? Super Bowl XLV, which pitted Green Bay against Pittsburgh a week and a half ago, was the most−viewed program in television history. More popular than the State of the Union. More popular than the Oscars. More popular than "Eastbound and Down" (how is this possible?). The owners don't seem to know what they have going for them. Or, the more likely and more depressing reality: They know precisely what they have, and are choosing to do all they can to exploit it.
When I say "it," I mean the players' health and wages above all else. The owners opted out of the last Collective Bargaining Agreement due to their feeling that it was more beneficial to the players (true), and that they were being treated unfairly (false). The owners seem to be failing to recognize that over the past two years, the true, frightening and innumerable effects of concussions have become widely known to the public. Concussions are rampant in all levels of football and their negative consequences are indisputable.
Despite the body of research proving the short− and long−term implications of concussions, the owners are insisting on adding two games to the season and justify this desperate attempt to generate even more revenue by expanding rosters and limiting practice sessions. But even a non−sports fan would expect the same starters to play all 18 games, even if they're exposed to more career−threatening or life−altering impacts. If two games are added, it's unlikely that Patriots owner Robert Kraft would say to Tom Brady, "You know what, Tommy boy, you do enough over 16 games, why don't you take a breather for two of these?" That'll happen when Mark Prior throws 200 innings again.
The players are learning more about the risks that their bodies take every time they step on the field. The research isn't pretty. Somehow the science of two 250−lb. elite athletes slamming into each other at full speed is starting to catch up with our intuition that maybe football isn't as safe as bowling. Giving a football player a helmet is a little like banning FourLoko on campus — it might eliminate some of the worst injuries, but the majority of them will happen anyway. Roger Goodell has the well−being of former, current and future NFL players in mind only as long as they contribute to the NFL's cash flow. Not quite the progressive standard that NFL alums in their '40s and '50s with arthritis and dementia want to see from their former employer.
The players proposed a 50−50 split in revenue sharing. The owners said no. The players asked to see the financial records that the owners cryptically reference when complaining about how they need a bigger share of all revenue. The owners said no. The players asked for AllSport on the sideline instead of Gatorade. The owners said no. Okay, that last one was made up, but given the power trip the owners are on, it wouldn't surprise me.
--
