Good luck on union gaining fan sympathy

Saturday, February 05 2011

NFL Players Association leader DeMaurice Smith and player president Kevin Mawae stood in a hot, crowded hotel ballroom here Thursday and made the case against the owners and the pending lockout. They threw out some loaded comments, argued the specifics of fairness and repeated the union’s battle cry.

“Let us play,” Smith kept saying.

This was all well and good but what the players didn’t do, and haven’t yet been able to do, is give fans any reason to support them in what has become a contentious labor battle.

The CBA has been front and center for Smith since taking over the union in 2009.

The general public believes NFL players are extremely well compensated – excessively so in some cases. They live fabulous, famous lives and, at least when it comes to the players they actual know, are set for life when they retire – unless they blow their money, in which case the repossessing of a Rolls Royce doesn’t elicit a lot of sympathy.

The idea that those same players might have to take a pay cut – which actually may just be a proportional cut of revenue that doesn’t result in fewer actual dollars – isn’t particularly distasteful. So they go from obscenely rich to slightly less obscenely rich?

Yes, players earn their money and risk their health. Yes, the average career is just 3.4 years. I’m sympathetic to the player’s cause on this. However, other than agreeing that an 18-game season is an unfair burden to the safety of the players, I don’t sense the average fan shares a strong pro-player viewpoint. On the list of problems in America it doesn’t seem like something to rebel over. Being an NFL player is a good deal; it’s why just about every kid grows up dreaming of being one. Besides, owners have been sticking it to workers forever. Welcome to the club.

And that’s one of the greatest obstacles for the NFLPA.

Its unlikely fans will support the owners – and there’s no reason they should. Even if the owners got their dream collective bargaining agreement, it wouldn’t lower the price of tickets or popcorn or jerseys. The billionaires would just have more. “The owners don’t love the game,” Mawae said. “They love money.”

Perhaps, but in the end, fans will blame everyone.

Whether having fan support matters at the end of the day is debatable. The union clearly believes there is a benefit to it though. That’s why it held a high-profile news conference here during Super Bowl week, even trotting out likeable former stars such as Barry Sanders. It’s why they produced television and internet advertisements. It’s why they keep making their case in the media.

Smith tried to pander to the people Thursday, claiming the greatest victim of a lockout would be the fans who love the game. Whatever. Cue the violin music. That was straight grandstanding.

There’s no doubt fans will be outraged if the fall begins without football. That’s all the fans care about: Will we lose any games? A fan missing out on a couple Sunday’s though isn’t the same as highly-leveraged players missing out on a couple paychecks.
The NFL will come back. Some of the players may not.

Mawae said the union has a significant fund to help players weather the lockout, although he refused to get into specifics. He said the union has spent years educating players in the event of a work stoppage and said if any player isn’t financially prepared “it’s irresponsible on their part.”

Here’s guessing there’s been a lot of irresponsibility going around.

The owners know the players are in a tight spot. The fissures are obvious – whether it’s the public questioning of the union by New York Jets defensive back Antonio Cromartie to the host of private conversations I’ve had with players this week on Super Bowl radio row.

The players don’t want to get run over, but they don’t look ready to die on this hill either.

I asked Mawae why fans should support the players. Why should the guy at home care if highly-paid players might have to give a little bit back?

“We can give back a billion dollars a year for seven years,” Mawae said, of one ownership proposal. “But why?

“They haven’t showed us why we should give back. We’re happy with the status quo. There’s no reason to give anything back when you’re not asking for anything in the first place.”

True or not, I just don’t see how that is going to win anyone over.

Smith was effective when he pointed out the game keeps generating more and more revenue and everyone is benefitting. The NFL is a $9 billion business today. Given that NFL revenue has more than doubled since 2000, how long before it becomes a $20-25 billion industry?

“There’s no indication anyone has lost a dime,” Smith said. “There’s no indication revenue is down. There’s no one saying, ‘we’re on the verge of losing money.’ ”

So why change the current system?

The owners’ fight is as much an internal squabble, big markets bitter they have to continue to support smaller markets. The ability of teams from any sized city – the Super Bowl is Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay, after all – is a huge positive for the overall business. And eliminating revenue-sharing wouldn’t suddenly give Daniel Snyder a clue.

But rather than fighting over each other’s money, they’re just going after the player’s money.

If you’re a player, you can understand why you’d oppose such a plan. A billion dollar give back is serious money. I get it, if only because I’ve seen the physical toll the sport delivers.

To the general public though, it’s just the rich fighting the rich.

The union is interested in getting the fans behind them. Thursday was one more day they didn’t accomplish it. (source Dan Wetzel – Yahoo Sports)