I am a huge NFL fan. I watch about 100 live NFL games every year, plus innumerable hours watching older games and reading or writing about the league. From September through January, football occupies most of my waking life. Even during the offseason, I do things like compiling lists of the greatest kick returners ever or the best postseason quarterbacks. I love pro football, and I have covered the NFL draft every season since 2003.
I skipped this year's draft.
I didn't watch on television. I didn't read about it. I don't even know who was picked after the first round, though I'm sure I'll learn if the league ever admits that there should be games this year. Joe Posnanski wrote a post last week that largely echoes my feelings on this matter:
"The owners, under Goodell's leadership, decided to go for broke as they try to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement. They did this at a time when the NFL is, by far, the most successful sports league in America, perhaps the world. They did this at a time when the league is a $9 billion entity, when television networks are sending flowers and chocolate, and when reports are coming out constantly about the horrible damage football does to its players. Goodell, in representing the owners, had the gall to cry poor, to demand a billion more right off the top for their billionaire owners, to say that the game could not possibly continue like this, to take money away from players who seem to be dying young and suffering terribly in later years, to actually demand expanding the season."
As Posnanski pointed out, during labor conflicts, most sports fans reflexively side against the players. But there is a clear bad guy this time, and it's not the players or the union. It's the league and the owners. If you're blaming the players for the possibility that there might not be NFL games in 2011, you don't understand what's going on. Or maybe you're racist, and feel more comfortable with billionaire white owners than millionaire black players. Maybe you're racist and you don't understand what's going on.
What's going on is that the owners want more money. The poorest NFL owner has more money than Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Ray Lewis combined. According to the 2009 team evaluations by Forbes, the least valuable franchise, the Oakland Raiders, is worth about $800 million. Most teams are worth over $1 billion, and all of the owners have substantial assets outside of football. These guys don't need more money. But they're fighting with players who risk their health every time they step onto the field. Players want improved post-career medical coverage, and they don't want longer seasons that would increase injuries and shorten their careers.
This isn't about greedy players trying to add another Lamborghini to their garages. It's about Darryl Stingley. It's about Mike Webster and Kevin Everett and Cedric Killings. It's about Ted Johnson and Mike Utley and Dave Duerson. It's about owners who would rather not have any football games than share their profits with the men who actually play them.
I love the NFL. The league recently suffered a significant legal defeat in its efforts to cancel the 2011 season, and if there are games this September, I'll watch them and write about them. But for now, the league is locking out the players with one hand and promoting its annual draft with the other. It's hypocrisy. It's not football, and it's not fun. Call me in September, Commissioner Goodell.
May 3, 2011
Joshua Duffy:
Can’t argue with the reasoning, although the owners know that most of us (myself included) are too loyal to their product to care much about their hyporcrisy. Am I bothered by the lockout? Absolutely. It’s crap. But I still watched all three days of the draft, I’ll still go grab some more Pats gear out of the NFL Pro Shop, and I’ll still be right there on my couch every Sunday from September through February. In that respect, the NFL is no different than the Tobacco or Liquor industries. You can tell me all you want about how bad they are - I’m still consuming the product. The only difference in this case is that it’s the players paying the physical toll instead of the consumer.
May 5, 2011
Anthony Brancato:
But if the players win this scorched-earth antitrust suit of theirs, there will be no more drafts for you to boycott, Brad.
And since you dragged Darryl Stingley’s name into this, remember that he suffered his devastating injury in one of these exhibition games that the players are so hell-bent on preserving, instead of allowing the owners to grow the game by moving to the same 18 regular-season, two exhibition-game format the CFL has used successfully, and without complaint from its players, for 25 years.
May 7, 2011
Brad Oremland:
Joshua,
If you want to support the league financially, that’s your business. It’s not my money. But one of the reasons we have this lockout is because owners are counting on saps who will support them regardless.
Anthony,
I’ve read Mr. Goodell’s op-ed, too. It’s disingenuous, treats fans like we’re stupid. The players aren’t fighting to preserve pre-season games, they’re arguing against expanding the regular season. The players would love a shorter preseason, but not if it means an 18-game schedule.
May 8, 2011
Anthony Brancato:
But Brad, you’re acting as if the 18-game schedule is the number-one issue in this dispute, when in fact it is far down the list.
And what if the total number of plays each team has in a season does not change, even if the number of (regular-season) games does increase?
Bringing that about is shockingly simple: Merely keep the game clock running after incomplete passes and during extra-point attemps, except in the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the game.
If the number of plays does not go up, neither does the risk of injury - a legitimate concern for the players; and - duh? - will not, or should not, the players receive a 12.5% across-the-board base salary increase if the league does go to 18 games?
The casual observer won’t even notice - except when the late games start at 4:00 ET instead of 4:15, and are over by 7:00; and the latter means that FOX and CBS will no longer have to move back or even cancel originally-scheduled Sunday evening programs (no more joining 60 Minutes in progress, “except on the West Coast,” for example).