Saying that NFL players can be treated like "objects" is over the top. Nobody is indispensable. Even the least paid NFL player who may never even be activated for a game earns a half-million per year.
Being an NFL player is inherently a high risk, high reward, relatively short term profession. But even a moderately paid NFL player who can last for 4 or 5 years can have a high living standard the rest of his life if he is wise with his money.
Yes, of course, the employer has the upper hand. The guy who pays the bills and who generates the revenue is responsible to a lot of people, sometimes to share holders. We operate within a Capitalistic system and these are the rules that we play by.
Do NFL players have the right to essentially boycott, not play, and have their pay docked accordingly? Sure. They're not objects or slaves without rights. Yet they have voluntarily signed a contract for their services that is based on a certain amount and a length of time. So is not honoring it the ethical thing to do because the player wants to change the terms mid-contract? I suppose that is in the eye of the beholder. And, not all situations are equal.
But of all the positions on a team, I think an RB needs to think twice about boycotting their current contract. RBs can be fairly easily replaced, even if it is with a platoon system. Look at the Rams; Gurley's knee went south at the end of the year, our excellent #2 back went down with a clavicle injury, and the Rams sign CJ Anderson and he comes in and immediately does a good job.
It's not black and white, one-size-fits-all for sure. But it is a gamble that is just as likely not to pay off.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2019 04:40AM by RockRam.