Judge's NFL Ruling Makes No Sense

Some people are celebrating the decision of the Minnesota judge to end the NFL lock-out, and some even say there is a much better chance the full season will be played now. I'm not so sure. There is no doubt that the owners will appeal this judge's decision to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals -- a court generally considered to be much more conservative and business-oriented (since most of those judges were appointed by Republicans). The truth is that the lock-out might or might not be continued, but either way the owners and players are no closer to solving their disagreement.

But what confuses me today are the seemingly inconsistent actions of the judge. Just a couple of weeks ago she demanded that the NFL and the union (?) continue their negotiations through mediation -- a mediation scheduled to continue about the middle of May. Then she issued her opinion that said the owners could not lock out the players. They could have locked out a union, but she ruled the union was legally decertified and the NFL could not lock out what is now essentially about 1900 individual players.

Don't these two positions seem to be diametrically opposed? If there is no union, then how can negotiations continue? How can the owners be expected to negotiate with an entity that does not exist? If the former union is now nothing more than sort of a social club composed of 1900 individuals who are under no obligation to obey the dictates of that social club, then wouldn't the owners have to negotiate with all 1900 players individually?

The judge has ordered the two sides to continue negotiating, but said the players have no union authorized to do that negotiating. This makes no sense. Either there is a union or not -- and if there isn't then each player would have the right and responsibility to negotiate on his own, and the league would have the right to make all the rules that would bind all the clubs and players.

With her differing order and judgement, the judge has allowed the players to have their cake and eat it also. They don't have a union but can negotiate as though they did. That's just ridiculous!

Please don't take my statements to mean I am siding with the owners. Personally, I think the owners are just as stupid and greedy as the players -- and just as wrong. This is just a battle of two greedy sides, neither of which gives a damn about the fans (who pays all the bills in case they have forgotten). Thirty-two owners and 1900 players are being offered a $9 billion pie, and they are all too greedy to decide how to fairly cut that pie.

But in spite of the continuing stupidity and posturing by both sides, the actions of the judge just doesn't make sense. At least that's what I think. What do you think (or do you even care)?