The NFL wants to talk about how much they risk, and how the players should shoulder more of the risk. ABSURD!

By now you have heard the argument that the NFL wants the players to shoulder more risk as part of the new collective bargaining agreement negotiation strategy.

Not even going into the obvious answer, that the players have been risking life and limb, and for years under sub-par conditions at and sub-par equipment. This has been shown lately by the concussion studies and traumatic brain injury reports. The players shoulder more risk on the field and financially than anyone gives them credit for.

One of the main sources of that risk is the one sided, unilateral contracts that the players sign. How many of you know that when a player signs contract, that contract is only binding to the player. Unlike anywhere else in the world of business, a professional football player's contract can be ended at any time by the owners. That does not work both ways as we have seen. When an owner decides that they would like to allocate salary elsewhere, they will go to a player and ask him to take a reduction in pay, and if the player does not agree they can cut(release) him. Let me give you an example, an average player signs a five-year contract, that player cannot decide during the contract that he would like to go play for another team, or he would like an increase in pay. We have seen the public outcry, from media and from some fans when a player asks for more equitable pay based on his performance. Where is that same outcry, when a player who has not dipped and performance and production is asked to take a pay cut? I would love to see a study as to how much money the owners shift under the salary cap, and into their pockets by taking money from players who earned it,as evidenced by the contract, and allocated it elsewhere. I believe that the dollar figure is in the billions since 1993. This is something that does not get talked about, and I don't understand why. There are clauses in the contract that state if the owners JUDGE the players performance on the field to have decreased in the slightest, and for what ever reason, they have the right to release the player from his contract, or arbitrarily renegotiate the contract. As we have seen over the years, this is highly subjective, and used as a tool by ownership to save them money and to stay under the cap, and sometimes for more insidious reasons during labor negotiations.

So who is really taking a risk? Yet again, it is the players, who take all the risk, with one-sided contracts that can be reduced or eliminated at the owner's whim, and playing a sport that by its very nature will have long-lasting physical ramifications in the years to come. Yes both sides choose to be in this position, but that's not the question. The question is who takes more risk, and I believe the answer is clear. I don't see owners icing down after a football game. I don't see cities or state governments, arbitrarily redoing stadium contracts because the teams have underperformed in the slightest way. I don't see fans in the middle of the season demanding a reduction in ticket prices because the product on the field is under-performing their expectations.

The scales of risk is heavily weighted towards the players who play the game.

Authored by: Nolan Harrison III