clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Owners Should Get Share of Blame if Negotiations Fall Apart

New, comments

I think there will be a strong tendency to blame the players if they do not vote to accept the new CBA. The owners have voted to do so and end the lockout. Why won't the players? I tend to think the owners will win the PR spin war in such an event, which I have stated multiple times over the past few hours. There is a difference, though, between guessing how people will view it and saying I agree with that interpretation.

No matter what happens, the owners will in my view have a great deal of responsibility. They are the reason the league is in this mess. They opted out of the old CBA and locked the players out.

If the players are correct in their complaints that the owners rushed a vote before everything is agreed to, I will sympathize with the players further. I want this lockout to end, but the players have a lot at stake. These guys could lose billions of dollars. They are putting their bodies on the line and shortening their life spans to produce the product. Their services make the league its money. People want to watch the best. Fans don't watch the UFL. They want to watch these elite athletes and see the game at its highest level.

If there is even one issue the players did not agree to, the owners should not have voted on that CBA. Considering everything the players provide them, every single aspect should be agreeable to both sides. That's only fair. Why should the owners be able to dictate some terms of the deal? Why should the players have to leave money on the table without having their voice heard? Isn't it called a collective bargaining agreement because both sides presumably agree to it?

Time will tell which side was telling the truth. As you might be able to tell, I have a hunch. The owners have acted in bad faith throughout this process. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here as well.