I'd say that's a completely different argument -- some players make decisions that put the team first, others put self first. I won't even say one is right and the other is wrong (though as a fan I obviously side with the first group!).
But this idea that the owners "owe" their players for all the revenue they bring in has idealistic merit, but is realistically ignorant (not saying you believe that, just getting back to my original point). Players need the NFL WAY more than the owners need it. I know that doesn't sit well with today's entitlement society, but that doesn't make it any less true . . .
I am not suggesting that the owners owe the players anything other that what they have all agreed to. The owners provide the venue and the players play the game. Together they agreed on how much each will share in the revenue. In that way, I completely agree with you.
I also agree with your point that some players put themselves first (in my opinion the overwhelming majority) and others put the team first. Let's be clear that where this really becomes an issue is with the top 1% of players. It's the Revis', Wilkerson's and D'Brick's that impact the ability for the team to field a championship caliber team. Together the three eat up 30% of the cap number. Let's also be clear that each of these players will earn more than $100mm in their careers. If each conceded $4-6mm this season (THE WAY REVIS DID FOR THE PATS) the team could field a championship quality team. For most of the other players I completely understand they need to look out for what is in their (and their family's) best interests.
I just find it interesting that Revis was the team-friendly side of equation when it came to signing with the Pats and on the other side when it came to signing with the Jets.
Last edited: