Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

[Patler]

I don't think 'fair' is the right word to use when it comes to these negotiations. Kind of like your thread asking how much is fair profit for the owners. By my estimation, both sides are getting well beyond 'fair'.

I don't like your fundamental question about the player's income increase being enough. Are you suggesting they're getting enough, and they should be happy? Yes, players have seen enormous salary increases, and I assume owners have seen enormous profit increases. The problem is that the owners want to roll back the number the player's salaries are calculated from, but won't tell them why.

I thought it was clear that "fair" in these discussions means the owners relative to the players and the players relative to the owners.

Does it matter if they roll back the manner in which the number calculated from is determined, if the net effect is really a substantial increase to the players? As I mentioned previously, giving the owners more off the top to increase Total Revenue (however defined in a new CBA) can result in an even greater income for players.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone, or blindside them after they respond. I will restate my last question:

As between the owners and the players, is it only "fair" to the players if the owners profits increase no more percentage-wise than the players income? Or, yet another way, - If the players experience a huge increase, is it fundamentally unfair to the players if the owners' profits increase by an even larger percentage?