Originally Posted by gyldenlove
The players have no responsibility to consider continuity, in fact if the player reps consider continuity over the best interest of the players they would be wildly incompetent to the point where they could be legally liable for damages.
Another way to consider the giveback is that about 50% of a roster will give back little or nothing unless the NFL is able to reduce the minimum salaries, in which case the entire giveback (about 7% of total salaries) will be shouldered by half the league or less, that will mean an average of about 10% reduction in salaries for a league that is by all indications not only profitable but may be one of the most profitable pro sports in the world.
It is sad to see, but it comes down to love of the game, and the majority of the current owners do not have it. European soccer club owners post 10s or 100s of millions of dollars and some even billions of dollars into their teams in the pursuit of a championship, not in pursuit of profit - NFL owners on the other hand are taking the game hostage to turn a bigger profit.
OK, but if the reduction is $9.375 million per team with a total salary outlay of $120 million per team, that's a 7.8% reduction. It's steep, no doubt about it, and I can see how the players don't like that at all.
Yes, it seems the reduction burden will be on the shoulders of the higher-salaried players, but ALL the current and retired players will benefit from enhanced healthcare and retirement plans offered by the owners. The enhanced plans somewhat mitigate the salary reduction.
I don't think the owners are out to gouge the players, and I don't think soccer clubs are operating at a loss. I think the owners have a valid point that operating costs have increased fairly steeply. Who provides the meals, the transportation, pays for the hotels, pays the coaches & support staff, healthcare? The owners.