Football civics
What in the world were NFL players doing in Washington last month? We usually don’t see such a spectacle until the president invites the Super Bowl victors to the White House.
As the excitement of Green Bay’s big victory fades, football fans will turn their attention to the looming deadline to extend the collective bargaining agreement between the National Football League and the National Football League Players Association union. Both sides are concerned about money, and the players’ union has been lobbying to get Congress on its side. What kind of civics lesson is the union teaching?
The players and former players descended on the halls of Congress in January to make their case for getting a deal done before their agreement with the league expires on March 4. The current revenue split is 59 percent for the players and 41 percent for the owners. There’s a lot at stake for everyone in a league that generates $9 billion in revenue, and the players would like to recruit Big Brother to their side of the field.
OK, pull out your pocket Constitution and find where Congress might have the right to get involved in this dispute.
Find it yet?
I can’t find anything either, but the justification rests on an arcane interpretation of anti-trust law. It’s a stretch for Congress to intervene on such a flimsy interpretation of the rules. The players’ union doesn’t appear to be concerned. But should they care when our representatives routinely flex and bend the Constitution (think healthcare)?
Lobbying Congress, former Washington Redskins player Pete Kendall told CBS News, “I know this Congress in particular is concerned about three things: jobs, jobs, and jobs. . . . A lockout will affect jobs, jobs, and jobs. It will affect the local economies. It will affect not only just the players and just the owners, but also the people who attend the game, the people who work in service of the game.”
Someone coached Kendall well on the talking points. NFL senior vice president for government affairs Pete Miller said, “We will respond to the Players Association’s strategy of engaging Congress on labor issues—but only respond. We have no intention of trying to draw Congress into our negotiations.”
I can’t see politicians getting involved in a fight between rich owners and rich players, but I hope kids weren’t watching Kendall on the news. What a poor civics lesson: Suggesting that Congress intervene in NFL negotiations violates the original intention of our nation’s rulebook, the Constitution.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top13 Comments to “Football civics”
I agree, this is their problem. Congress, the President, the courts, the media, everyone should butt out of this.
You can cheer for one side or the other, but from the sidelines.
What kind of football game, BTW, doesn’t have cheerleaders?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, it sure would be too bad if the NFL players didn’t get a better deal; I’d sure hate to see them begging on the streets.
(sarcasm off)
Report comment to moderator
What do you expect from some one who probably attended a public school that was staffed with union labor?
Report comment to moderator
It’s really an interesting kind of story. Sort of an employer’s worst nightmare. Employees who are demonstrably, provably better than anyone else in the world at what they do who are unionized. And the same employees opt for revenue sharing and modified communal distribution.
Imagine if the top guns at an investment bank did the same thing.
As for the thrust of the editorial content, Congress and the President have historically intervened in some labor disputes. I recall multiple interventions in steelworkers and longshoremens’ disputes and, of course, Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers.
But I certainly wouldn’t claim that this dipute affects the country like those did.
Report comment to moderator
But Arcadia, Reagan intervened to defy the union. Unions are evil, remember.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t get it. What exactly do they want Congress to do? If the dispute involves “an arcane interpretation of anti-trust law,” then by definition it’s a matter for the courts, not the legislative branch.
Report comment to moderator
2009 salary range for Dallas Cowboys was $310,000 to $16,000,000, cry me a river for the players. Have the unions talk to the top player and have them share!
Never happen!
Report comment to moderator
Players in yesterdays game got:
winners: $83,000
losers: $42,000
Report comment to moderator
And if he’s so concerned about jobs, then don’t strike. Wow, that was simple.
Report comment to moderator
Regardless of the amount of money, the percentage that they receive is more than fair. It’s downright generous.
I think that the owners should go on strike next season.
Report comment to moderator
In this economy, when you have a bunch of rich people with jobs duking it out with other rich people with jobs over who gets yet more money, I would have little trouble understanding if the public loses interest in the story.
Report comment to moderator
Unions don’t seem to care about how the/a strike affects those on the perimeter in other areas, ie: UAW re: the effect on suppliers/sub-contractors etc.; why the concern of “others” jobs here???
Strike!!!!!!!!!! Go the whole season without playing a game and see how it affects everybody!!!
You just may find that you aren’t as indispensable as you think.
As I once heard, “If you think you are indispensable, just stick your finger in a glass of water and look at the hole that’s left when you remove it!”
Report comment to moderator
Ah yes, the equivalence of a long snapper making 300k versus the button pusher making 20 bucks an hr.
BTW, I doubt this will be over the money. The players have bigger issues with how many games theyll be playing next year.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!