In that article, Reilly calls the NFL owners greedy and then goes on to provide examples of how the owners are not in need as they live their lives in luxury. He explains that with so many people unemployed in our economy and the growing depression that that can cause, all that many people have to look forward to is NFL football on Sundays.
My major issue with Reilly's argument is that he assumes that people are entitled to the NFL. It is this sense of entitlement that is plaguing our society most. The NFL owners, regardless of how wealthy they are and how poor other people are, are not obliged to produce the games for us to watch. The owners have any number of options for how they can employ their resources. To demand that they employ them in a way that suits our desires but offering what the owners perceive as a lower rate of return is to demand that they sacrifice of themselves in favor of our desires. To demand others sacrifice themselves for you and then chastise them for not doing so is hypocritical and immoral.
I do not intend to argue that the NFL owners are necessarily correct in their arguments. Indeed, both sides have what I believe to be unrealistic expectations in this negotiation. The true problem is that we have two cartels in the NFL: the NFLPA and the NFL owners. Collective bargaining is the source of the issues. If individual teams were able negotiate with individual players, I suspect that both sides would be much happier with the arrangements. Unfortunately, we have one cartel negotiating with another cartel. Two wrongs do not make a right, and the NFL will continue having labor disputes as long as these cartels exist.
Posts
