For anyone (including myself) struggling to keep up with the machinations of the current NFL Labour dispute, yesterday's Freakonomics podcast is an excellent overview of the issues at stake.
Essentially the podcast only served to reinforce my backing of the players, not least because the owner featured, Green Bay's Mark Murphy, didn't particularly make a good case for their position.
Murphy not only admitted that the owners had readily agreed to the deal just a few years ago which they are now rejecting, but as one of his core arguments stated that cities and municipalities no longer finance the building of stadiums as they once did, and that this was an expense that the owners had not previously had to account for.
Now, most people know that the NFL actively forwards money to the owners for the building of new stadiums under their G-3 stadium financing program, partly in an attempt to keep want-away owners from moving franchises and remaining in their existing city. So the financing of new stadiums as justification for a new agreement is a red herring.
And who wants these new stadiums in the first place? The owners themselves, who by building new luxury boxes and concession stands can generate more revenue that they can keep exclusively for themselves. The experience for fans is the creation of largely clean and spacious but sterile and corporate identikit arenas that chip away the history and character of the game.
Murphy also unwisely went on to criticise players for not appreciating the supposed benefits that the NFL provides in terms of health care coverage and benefits packages. I've never heard anyone say anything but the opposite about the health care most players end up receiving; fundamentally it's not nearly enough. Former players such as John Mackey, who now suffers from dementia caused by his days in the League, had to battle both the Union and the League for recognition of the causes of his condition and suitable compensation.
Yet Murphy stated that he wondered if the League does 'too much for the players', and made the comparison back to the Vince Lombardi-era, when players would work in the off-season to support their football income.
But this isn't that era, and here is where the problem lies. The public in general have a hard time seeing beyond the large salaries that players earn, conveniently forgetting that their careers are both short and fraught with possible risks to their future health.
Not only that, but to even have a chance of playing in the NFL in the first place, players have to commit their entire life to an uncertain career path of struggle; physical and mental toil on a daily basis that most of us can't fully comprehend.
In other words, if they're on an NFL roster, they've worked hard enough to get there and will likely have made plenty of personal sacrifices along the way. Moreover, many will have come from impoverished backgrounds to relative wealth.
If that income source is suddenly stripped away, not many will have transferable skills that will allow them to find an income-equivalent replacement in any walk of life. And why should they have to because the owners are suddenly demanding more money?
- The podcast also alerted me to Dave Duerson's suicide last week, yet another death linked to CTE. Duerson had asked in a note left that his brain be examined by the researchers at Boston University in order to establish the extent of his suspected brain damage caused by playing football.
I had meant to link to this article sooner, and also this short ESPN video on the future of youth football, with former professional players stating that they won't let their children play football for fear of their susceptibility to brain injuries.
With an increasing number of cases gaining more media attention, the future of the sport in its current guise could be in serious jeopardy. The CBA dispute then is just one hurdle the NFL must overcome in the months and years ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment