NFL Vs Players Union III

In this last blog post, I suggested that the owners of teams somehow used strong arm tactics to scrape away two percentage points from the players and that the real cost of this concessions would be borne by future players. In fairness, the owners also conceded to putting aside some money to ensure that retired players will receive some payments. However, I am surprised that the general assessment seems to be that this deal was fair.

Alex Marvez of Fox Sports covers the emotional session during which the agreement was declared to the public and concludes that there appears to be no ill-will between the sides. tThis may well be but as stated, i I think that the NFL is not only a cartel that hinders competition between franchises by sharing revenues and thereby dividing the market but that owners are aware of the very short careers of a majority of players and exploited it to the maximum. Looking at what has been declared of the collective bargaining agreement, i I am not sure that there was a commercially compelling reason for players to agree to the salary cap and cede 2% points in the overall revenue.  In light of the brinkmanship and tough negotiation, I see no reason to revise my view that players ceded much more and are the weaker side. I hope that further facts and analysis shows me otherwise for I wish to be better educated on the economics of the NFL teams. My best wishes for the next decade.