On the contrary, I'm not on the side of the owners, I think the union should do much better than they've done.
What would you prefer, an extra few hundred thousand dollars a year or health coverage? It’s likely they preferred to negotiate for a larger revenue share which is worth more on average than health coverage (estimated at around $4K a month per active player from what I’ve seen). Although there may be fringe cases like Hamlin where coverage would have been better for him, on the whole players are likely better off this way. (Unless we’re not trusting them to manage their finances properly to ensure lasting coverage, but I’m not sure why the league is responsible to be their babysitters).
The word “benefits” is usually a way for management to get away with spending less money while sounding impressive on a lower salary. It works both ways, though. Amazon did the reverse a few years ago when they cut benefits but raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour. Pure semantics.
