The amount of disinformation flying around about it is definitely dizzying. I think there's a large chunk of people who think "well this just must be like the baseball strike in 1994." Which obviously isn't true.

Okay, I have not taken either side as I don't have all the information necessary to make a decision on this, but this author is an idiot. He should say my opinion is x, and I believe that because....not my position is x, and if you don't agree you are a moron. One thing I have learned about this lockout is it appears to me, both sides have some fault, and it would end a lot faster if both sides would own up to that.

Ummm...no, that's not how things work around here. You pick a side and be willing to fight to the death over it.

LMAO So true. Unfortunately, this is also my father-in-law in real life discussions.

Some of the editorial stuff out of Deadspin over the last few months has kind of irked me. It's almost like they're becoming the type of self-important smug entity they used to blast ESPN for being.

This whole thing can simply be solved by players and owners negotiating. Both sides sit down and give a little tell they meet in the middle. Untill then nothing is going to be solved by blaming either side. It's on the players and owners, both are at fault. I don't give a shit who is right or wrong, just come to a conclusion that gives fans a game worth going too and so we can support our favorite teams.

It's about the money for the players and owners, but it's for the integrity of the game that is at risk, at the FANS expense.

Isn't this the whole thing behind unions though? A fair share of the profits to the employees?? Like GM, Ford, and so on.

LMAOLMAOLMAO

It's the foundation of a union. Give us X-amount or we will cripple your company by walking out. I don't know if they specifically tie their demands to profits, though.


They were great for setting the foundation for workers' rights back in the old days, but now their quest is not as noble.

Good grief.

At the point of opting out of the contract, the owners want to change the conditions of the agreement. There is nothing wrong or dishonest about this. The players then decided to leave the table and failed to agree with the owners of the business. Forcing the owners to lock them out. The players decided to stop working by not accepting that the business needed to lower salary and take measures to ensure the stability of THEIR business.

All you have to do to understand why people side with the owners is ask yourself a series of questions.

1. Who has the long term health of the league as a priority, players or owners?

2. Is keeping the NFL affordable to fans an important aspect of the long term health of the league?

3. Who makes decisions that control affordability, players or owners?

And the players don't give a shit if you can afford to watch the NFL in 10 years because on average, their career will be over.

if you said anything other than "nobody" for #2 and #3, you are incredibly naive.

The owners were not forced to lockout the players.

The players did not decide to stop working.

The problem is, business owners aren't in it for a fair share. They're in it to make a lot of money, and make their share holders a lot of money. And if unions start cutting into that slice of the pie by demanding a fair share, share holders take their money elsewhere, or businesses move their operations to places where employees are less expensive.

Putting it bluntly, business owners don't take pay cuts to better compensate their employees. If the employee is getting more, it's from cost cutting in other areas, or passing the cost off on customers.

So you think NFL owners want to price their product out of range of their customers? Not very sound business.