Skip to main content

View Diary: The NFL lockout and post-career health care (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not going to cry for (0+ / 0-)

    people who choose to play a sport, especially not when they're fighting over a multi-billion dollar pile of money.

    If this were any other industry and the players called it something other than a "union", all you people would be bashing them as greedy capitalists. But just because they choose that word, suddenly they're" brothers in arms."

    And the vast majority of NFL players DO go on to other careers and are just fine. So please stop insulting my intelligence.

    Why liberals are even defending this is beyond me - this isn't a "union" by any stretch of the imagination.

    •  Nobody's saying you should cry for them, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TexasTom, bryduck

      just not actively take the side of their employers who are threatening to keep them from playing the game they love so that they can (a) refuse to make concessions on long term health risks and (b) increase those risks by making the players do 2 extra games per year.  Or at least if you're going to take that view, back it up with some actual arguments.

      How are they not a union?  Because they make a lot of money?  How much do the owners make?  And if the owners aren't making enough, how is that the players fault?

      If nothing else, I think the NFLPA can draw attention to the issue of labor rights in this country and their success can be something that unions around the country can point to.  I think the owners are going to wind up looking bad because they'd be the ones trying to lock them out, with the NFLPA going to court to be allowed to play.  

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 08:51:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the vast majority of players (0+ / 0-)

      only play for 3-4 years, too, so they aren't the ones who typically need the medical help you apparently want to deny them.
      This is indeed a union, because the other side is ownership/management. The players may make more than most of us--as long as they can perform as popular entertainers better than 99.99999% of the world's population, that is--but the owners make a magnitude more. Liberals should defend all people who are in a situation where they have less power than those who employ them, regardless of comparative wealth. It's about power relationships, not money.
      Or do you think that unions should only be allowed to function up to a certain income level and no higher? Where do you draw that line?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site