lock out lifted

I don't think you understand. I'm not picking sides, just pointing out the irony that there is a lot to be lost by winning. Especially for the non-star players. The irony for the owners is that about the only tactic for getting the players to bargain with them is a lockout, and that probably is the one thing that hurts the owners most. (In their wallets).

 

http://nfllabor.com/2011/04/26/commissioner-goodell-litigation-endangers-nfl’s-success-2/

The players are actively pursuing a solution through litigation based on anti-trust law. That has the potential to dramatically change how the NFL operates. (Please see the commissioner's view of what that would look like in the link. And believe me he steered clear of some of the nastier features.). You and I might not like it. The average player might not like it either.

 

The ultimate ace in the hole would seem to be consolidating the NFL into a single entity divided into 32 different franchises (like McDonald's). That would be a drastic step which most owners would loathe unless they had no better option, but it would completely fuck over the players.

 

That's exactly right. The owners wouldn't be able to join together to agree on anything. They would be forced to work completely independently. But they could do just about anything they wanted with their own franchise.

 

Ok fine, I was just pointing out that your statement: "The owners are fighting to preserve the structure of football, built through negotiations with the players and which was successful in part because it was win-win.", is completely false since the owners are obviously the ones trying to change the existing structure, which they see as a failure that was a win only for the players.

 

Curious... How so?

 

"Fighting to preserve the structure" is perhaps a bit too strong. Sorry to push your buttons with a poor choice of words. But understand this. As long as collective bargaining was taking place it was an argument about sharing the money. When the collective bargaining stopped, the union decertified, and litigation was started, the players sued under anti-trust laws. They could have continued collective bargaining, but they didn't. And anti-trust is a Big Deal. It may mean that each team must have its own rules and the owners are not allowed to have agreements with each other. So, you have no draft, no cap, no minimums, no off-season workout rules, no rookie cap, no limit on the number of players, no rules about talking to coaches or players of another team, etc. That's what I mean by the structure of football.

 

No problem. I have a pet peeve with the seemingly increasing trend of people making up "facts" to support their opinions and that's how your comment initially read to me.

I don't think anyone who should know better realistically believes there won't be another CBA. The anti-trust angle is just a strategy for forcing the owner's to compromise, just like the lockout was a way of trying to force the players to compromise. I'm in favor of most of the things the owner's are wanting: less pre-season games, lower rookie caps, and containing costs in general (as long as a chunk of the savings is passed on to my ticket prices), but I also think that they have no one to blame but themselves for the current situation.

 

Appears we understand each other.

 

Anti-trust arguments are based on the idea that NFL teams are separate entities which are collectively manipulating the market. If the NFL is one entity in 32 different locations, then that argument no longer applies.