http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/adrian-peterson-slavery-nfl_n_836090.html

I believe he is (was) reported to make $10.7 million in 2012.

Delusional!

Well there are two ways to look at the players. One is say that they just employees and therefore have to no real right to see the books or to demand a specific part of the income. But there is another way to look at it as well. They are in fact the product that ownership is selling to us the fans. From that point of view I would think the are entitled to more consideration the just being called employees.

Seems to me the real power could lie with us a fans. If ownership holds to the lock out and kills the season, then we as a grand group announce that we vow to never return to a game if and when they come to their senses. Of course as fans we will never do that, there have been lockouts/strikes before and we always come back and they know that.

Don't get me wrong I think they all should be well paid after all it is the American way. But does seem a bit strange to go on strike when you are making over a million a year. Just strange for ownership to do what they are doing. After all these guys (well except for Jerry Jones) need the good will and deep pockets of the communities to build the facilities in which the play. The Irsay's have been working to get better and better deals from the powers to be in Indy. Kill a season(not to mention the Super Bowl) and the next time they go to the city fathers with hands out they may not get the reception they want.

Dave I agree the players are the "product" but the vast majority are grossly overpaid when compared with their production.

Guaranteed insane-money contracts for rookies needs to stop. It seems in 75% of the cases the player did not even come close to earning it...heck 1/2 of them don't even start. They can still be paid handsomely but need to produce. They all need to produce.

I think if you took "corporate ticket" purchases away a lot of other stuff would fall in line. So many fans that attend games never even paid for the ticket.

I would agree with a rookie salary such as that in the NBA. But how do you judge who is over paid in a league that allows owners to reap such high rewards? I for one would prefer only one year deals as in the past so that you get paid for what you actually did not what you are projected to do. Or a contract that is incentive laden so again to reward performance. That does have some pitfalls, I can see players complaining due to lack of playing time, number of carries, passing going to them ect.

But there is more then enough money for all and both sides have to take some of the blame for all of this. And if they cannot...well I love football, but they are not the only game in town. More time to focus on the College game, baseball in October (where I often loose interest unless the White Sox are still in the mix!) Hell might even get serious about the NASCAR points chase and all those left only turns. If the rich kid wants to take his ball and go home I can find someone else to play with!

Hold up just a minute. This is not a strike. This is a lockout. The owners were talking lockout before negotiations began.
Generally, Steve, I agree with you. The players are rich beyond belief, and historically I have sided with the owners.
But the problem here isn't that the players want a greater share of the owners' money. It's that the owners want more money and want the players to play more games.
Would you sit quietly and take it if your employer told you that despite making tremendous profits, he was going to cut your pay so he could increase profits and then demanded that you work 6 days instead of 5, or increased your hours from 8 to 14 per day?
I don't disagree with salary caps or rookie maximums. But wasn't it the owners who opened up the purses in the first place? Buying talent instead of developing it?

Woody, valid points. I guess both sides could use slapping around but I guess I tend to side a bit more with the owners here. Perhaps it is more of a generational thing than an owners versus players thing but I grow increasingly disgusted with the self entitlement of today's athletes.

If they add 2 "real" games but deduct 2 preseason games, I don't see that as much of an issue with regards to having to play more games.

Two more regular season games while eliminating 2 of the worthless preseason games? CHECK-I am with the owners on that. Cap on rookie salaries? CHECK-I am down with that. Salary caps-tough one-as we know the avg career in the NFL is so relatively short. Maybe players could share in percentage of the gate past 75%of capacity. Wilt Chamberlain had a contract structured like that. Ultimately. the players are the reason we watch the games live and on TV. The owners CAN NOT get away with presenting an inferior level of talent. Anyone remember the USFL? World Football League? The XFL? People won`t buy it. In rock n roll, managers like Albert Grossman+Peter Grant assured that the actual TALENT- the songwriters+musicians that created the art+sweat onstage-they got the artists who were the reason for the crowds+record sales a larger, fairer portion of the money-money that ultimately would NOT exist if not for the talent. I am not saying the owners should lose money-but OWNER greed seems to be the larger issue here.

That's 2 less games of evaluating rookies, which can be made up for with scrimmages and training camp. But 2 more games with something on the line means more injuries and shorter careers (no doubt a consideration by the owners; if we make 'em retire early, we can shave salaries through attrition).
One thing I haven't heard mention of is whether rosters would be expanded with the 2 additional games.
The problem I see with expanding the season is it was once 12 games. Then 14. And for the last 30-plus years, 16. Now they want to make it 18. And in a few years, it'll be 20.
I, too, have traditionally sided with owners. But in sports, the NFL is the hottest ticket. And the revenue sharing they've had, combined with the salary cap, have enabled all teams to compete for free agents and limited the powerhouses from buying up all the talent. So where a franchise has struggled year after year, that's largely due to poor management. That's part of why the league remains a big draw.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Paul, I think it has far more today with marketing and how the product is presented and marketed moreso than pure player talent. Player talent is dime a dozen in my mind.

Thoughts on the NFL rule changes?
Kickoffs moved to the 35 (it used to be the 40, then the 35 and more recently the 30), and players other than the kicker may only have a 5-yard running start.
And all scoring plays will be reviewed by the booth official.
I submit that last one is dumb. I can see close plays - did the ball break the plane, did the receiver have possession? But are they seriously going to review a punt/kick/interception/fumble return? A break-away run? A long pass where the receiver was in the middle of the field and ran into the end zone?