FUTURE LOCKOUT = DISTRESS FOR ALL

I just came across an article that has me riled up in more than one way. No it has nothing to do with Brady or Favre, or even Vick, at least not directly. No, the article is all about the idea of a 2011 lockout in the NFL. And no, the lockout won't be because of the football players' union who wants more money. According to this article on Yahoo! Sports, the owners of all 32 teams in the NFL will be the ones who cause this lockout.

First of all, I don't know what I would do with myself in the fall of 2011 if there was no football. I'm sure fans of hockey could tell me how much it stinks to not be able to see the sport of choice. I don't even know if there has ever been a strike in football, and I'm too lazy to go research that. Either way, I know that as a fan, I will be very disappointed if we have no football due to having issues renegotiating salaries.

Second, I am actually surprised it's not going to be a strike from the union. What bothers me is that owners and managers have been forking over big bucks for the players that they want. Salaries that might almost be comparable to baseball players. So in theory, if these owners didn't try to outbid one another for rookies and star players, there wouldn't be as much of an over-salaried player. Football players don't make as much as baseball players do, and there is a good reason why. Salary caps are there for a reason people, so stop paying big bucks for rookies you haven't even used yet! (cough cough Jets cough cough). Feeding the fire only causes more fire.

Next, if owners are going to have a lockout, then they are going to lose a crap load of money. Think of all of the accessories, jerseys, clothing, food, memorabilia, etc that will not be sold, and that is just at the stadium! I know that if my Bills aren't playing then I'm most likely not going to be buying t-shirts or jerseys or anything because there would be no reason to wear them (unless I have a make believe season in my head and the Bills are coming out as the number one team, although somehow they would be losing then too...) I understand that the owners wouldn't be shelling out as much cash to their players, but they wouldn't really be making any profit on anything, except for die hard fans that might buy some things for Christmas or something like that.

Most of the article is about how players should be more conservative with their money, especially since their is this fear about a lockout. Honestly, and this might be because I don't make the kind of money they do, but players should already know that they should be conservative with their money. Save some of it for Christ sake! I would think whether or not there is a lockout, players who burn through their big dollar paychecks are going to end up in financial trouble anyway. Understandably, once the money stops coming, there will be more of an issue of "poverty" and debt. I have to say (and I guess I am going back on my word about how this won't be about Vick) but he was in financial trouble and that didn't have anything to do with a lockout.

All in all, I think that a lockout sucks for everyone involved, but most importantly, for the fans. Both owners and players have to realize that the NFL is for the fans. All of the merchandise, all of the winning and losing, it's for the fans. Without it's fans, the NFL would be nothing like it is today. We are the ones who keep it running, and sometimes that is true in the financial sense. I think that owners and players and the unions should figure out some way for the players to continue to play, to not be selfish, and think of the fans.

Jaclyn Kahn