Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Posted on: April 22, 2011 4:42 pm
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell challenged the former union in a wide ranging interview with USA Today . Pro Bowl running back Steven Jackson read what Goodell said and wasn't happy about it.

First, a portion of Goodell's comments. "They're challenging fundamental aspects that have made the league successful and popular with the fans," Goodell said. "They're going after the draft, as an example, pursuing the draft as illegal. They're pursuing free agency restrictions as illegal. They're pursuing aspects of the salary cap as illegal. That's what they're saying. We don't believe that. It's been negotiated. We think they've been good for the players, the clubs and most importantly, the fans. It's what's created a successful product. So the union attorneys are attacking everything that we think has made the league successful."

Basically, what Goodell is saying is that the former union doesn't want the draft, free agency or the salary cap. Now, Goodell doesn't directly say that but that's the impression he leaves with readers. None of those things, of course, are true. It's the opposite. The former union, of course, doesn't want free agency restrictions.

When Jackson saw Goodell's comments he responded quickly saying Goodell wasn't telling the entire story.

"The glaring omission from the commissioner's comments is the truth," said Jackson in a statement obtained by "We are challenging his lockout of players and fans. How could he miss that?"

It's likely Jackson won't be the lone player to respond to Goodell.

Category: NFL
Tags: Lockout

Since: Nov 26, 2007
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:44 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

You hit the nail right on the head... great job, Free.

Since: May 28, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:35 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

@tmann: Thank buddy

BTW...I do know how to spell "necessarily". LOL

Since: Dec 22, 2006
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:25 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

freemoor, if there was something beyond a five-star rating, like a "Best Post Ever" rating, I'd be clicking it for yours right now. Here here.

Since: May 28, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:24 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

If the players went on stike, claiming to be in financial jeopardy, sports fans would hurt themselves laughing at such a claim. However, the owners, who are wealthy enough to write checks to all these "millionaire players" are making the same claim.  If that is not ridiculous enough, let me reiterate that ALL 32 NFL TEAMS ARE LISTED AMONG THE 50 WEALTHIEST SPORTS FRANCHISES IN THE WORLD !!!

Still not enough?  How 'bout this.  The combined wealth of the NBA and the NHL doesn't come within 2 BILLION dollars of the NFL's wealth.

The owners are F.O.S. and if there is no football this fall, its their fault not the players.

Since: Apr 17, 2008
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:20 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Well said...

Since: May 28, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:13 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Thank you!

Since: Dec 10, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:09 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Mr Goodell, if it was so good for the players, the clubs , and the fans; then why did the owners opt out?

Since: May 28, 2009
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:08 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

There is nothing honorable about being willfully ignorant.  First off, there is no strike.  There is a lockout.  That means the owners created this mess.  Three years ago, the NFL was being hailed as the model for labor peace in the sports world.  The owners opted out of the CBA and (as has already been found in federal court) attempted to illegally fund their lockout by restructuring the leagues television deal.  Television revenue is shared by the owners and the players, but the owners restructured the tv deal such that payments would still be received but players would be excluded.  The NFL owners, despite the leagues popularity, have been conspiring for the last two years.

Why should the owner's open their books?

The owner's originally claimed the current CBA put the League in financial jeopardy, insuating that the League was facing a (wait for it...) eminent threat if immediate action was not taken to negotiate a more equitable deal.  The League maintained this until lawmakers such as Jay Rockefeller urged the league to open the books.  "Open the books" is PC for "put up or shut up".  If there was, as the league insinuated, a financial justification for their acrtions, they would have emailed, faxed, tweeted, skyped, and screamed it from the highest mountain.  How did the league respond?  They doubled their political contributions (fact) and then claimed they never said they were losing money. 

So why this?  And why now?

As has often been suggested, NFL owners were not immune to the economic collapse of '08.  The NFL owners may have taken a look at their hand and decided to play the only card over which they had control--the league.  Several "fans" have opined that players should take less if NFL teams are losing money. Well, Forbes listed the wealtiest sports franchises in the world.  How many NFL teams made the list?  If you said all 32, you'd be correct.  In fact, the "small market" Cleveleland and Kansas City Chiefs are respectively listed as the 18th and 19th wealthiest sports franchises in the world--ahead of Indy, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, and thirty spots ahead of the Lakers.  So who created this mess?  The owners again.  They put their collective feet in their mouths by claiming a financial basis for their action despite a preponderonce of evidence to the contrary.

What do I find most intesting about all of this?

Lebron James honored his contract, left thirty million on the table to win now, and he is listed among the most hated sports figures.  The NFL owners, despite unprecedented success and fan loyalty, have betrayed the entire country by unnecissarily opting out of the CBA.  So why are so many fans siding with the owners.  Hmmmm...

Since: Mar 15, 2011
Posted on: April 22, 2011 10:01 pm

Handle the Truth

Goodell needs to tell these billionaire owners to open the books and records and pay up---all the money the union wants.  The owners have plenty of millions and are just being greedy.  The players need the money, now.  A lot of the players are broke and are having to borrow money to pay their expenses, which are very high. 

Since: Dec 22, 2006
Posted on: April 22, 2011 9:36 pm

Rams' Steven Jackson: Goodell isn't telling truth

Redwings, the players have made the exact request that you claim they are unwilling to make: they asked for ownership stakes in franchises that would also require them to assume financial risk. And the response from Bob Betterman, the NFL's lawyer, was "my clients aren't interested in being partners with your guys." 

As to your comment about the owners being successful in other businesses apart from the NFL but the players being completely reliant on football to earn their living, is that an argument for ownership’s point of view in this fight? Guess what, there are a great many people in this country who are reliant on single skills to earn a living. I’m not sure what you want these guys to be. They’re good at football (or basketball, or whatever). It’s what we want them to be good at because sports play a big role in society. When it becomes obvious in middle school or high school that they have an opportunity to make it to the highest level, it’s the singular dream that they pursue, and that dream is supported (and exploited) all along the way, by high school teachers, college coaches and university presidents who turn blind eyes to their academic issues, by agents, and of course, by team owners. Let’s not pretend that everyone out there just loves these players as human beings and the players are now greedily turning their backs on them.

As for people asking the question “do other companies have to open their books to employees?” Uhhh, yeah, they do. Publicly-traded companies absolutely have to do that for their shareholders.

I am with terfra1 in that:

The players simply need to hold their ground and insist on no concessions to management. If management can present a compelling case of declining profitability, there would be reasons to have dialogue about concessions. However, there's simply no reason to believe this is the case. In fact, far from it. 


Finally, anyone who uses the word “strike” in this thread should not be allowed to comment anymore. It’s not a strike; it’s a lockout. Wake up.


Finally, anyone who uses the word “strike” in this thread should not be allowed to comment anymore. It’s not a strike; it’s a lockout. Wake up.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or