Quote Originally Posted by mraynrand View Post
^^^^ As we saw with Suh, the argument that suspension - even without pay - punishes the player can be weaker than the argument that it punishes the team, the fans and other teams that are relying on competitive games
But a part of Suh's argument was that it punished him as well, and the arbitrator bought that.

The argument that 'football players want to play football, and not letting them is punishment' is not going to be bought by everyone, mostly because all they see is the money they're being paid to do nothing. But there is another money argument that should make sense to everyone - football is the ultimate 'what have you done for me lately' sport, and future contracts are based on recent (very recent!) performances. If, say, an RB is forced to sit a season when he's 29, his chances of getting one more contract are significantly less that year later when he's 30 and hasn't seen the field in a year. Even if the reason he was sat ends up going away.