Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:
Originally posted by HessianDud:
its a dumb thing to say, but i think its pretty obvious that he means "slavery" in that the players do "all" the work and have no control over the business (and are "owned" by a group of people who make all the decisions). He's not talking about working for nothing and being whipped and raped and forced to breed. Again, dumb thing to say, and not really the kind of thing that the players need at the moment, but I don't think there's any need to react emotionally to it.
Haha yeah. But, Americans love gotcha moments. I think it's also the fact that owners want players to play 18 games and it's obvious that will shortens careers (especially at RB) and he is tryin' to say that the owners don't care for the players health and only concerned with profits.
Of course, relating it to slavery is stupid, but I get what he is trying to say.
i think the whole context of this labor unrest is that, like you say, the players think the owners don't give a s**t about them, or respect them, or think they are valuable parts of the business, and that the league has been two-faced about things like player safety. Wanting them to play more games for less money, basically, is a big slap in the face. And while "slavery" isn't an "accurate" term, I don't think its as "explosive" a comment as it otherwise would be, given that it occurred in the context of this particular labor dispute.
Also, this sentiment is not an uncommon one from athletes when going into these kinds of "battles with authority." Not that this current dispute is on par with, say, Ali, or Flood, or White, in terms of "fighting for rights" or whatever, but I think the fact that this idea exists in sports post-integration is interesting. In a way I'm glad AP made this comment because it reminded me that I wanted to read that book "40 million dollar slaves," which is about all this.