Roger Goodell took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal today to argue not for his case … but to ridicule the players’ case.
Titled “Football’s Future If the Players Win,” Goodell lays out the implications of a player victory in their NFL anti-trust lawsuit.
A total victory would mean no draft, no free agency restrictions, no salary cap, no drug testing, no insurance.
Sounds pretty terrible since, as Goodell correctly points out, those rules have created the competitive balance that made the NFL the most successful league in the world.
But is that really what the players want? Technically, yes. The complaints filed in Brady v. NFL consider pretty much every league-wide rule a anti-trust violation.
However, the players don’t actually want to win the lawsuit. They don’t even want to go to trial. They want the existing CBA to continue as is. It’s been incredibly favourable to them and their negotiation has been geared toward keeping that going as long as possible.
And if the current situation is as awesome as Goodell makes it sound … why do the owners want a new CBA in the first place? Why lockout the players at all? (By the way, there’s no mention of the word “lockout” or any indication that the “work stoppage” was imposed by the owners.)
Goodell seems pretty happy with the status quo. Why not keep it going?