Agreed. I suspect players at other positions, many of whom would likely support the RBs in their current endeavor (many simply for optics), would shut down their support pretty quickly if they thought for a second that it meant less money for them. This isn't like baseball where the Yankees or Dodgers have an endless supply of money and there is no cap.You're making the (IMO incorrect) assumption that they would want to do anything about it. Some of you seem to forget that it's basically a zero-sum game. Why would the players union, who represents the entire league, want to make it better for one position and worse for others? Do you think all of the WRs, CBs, LBs, etc. would volunteer to make less money so RBs can make more?100%. The players union has no teeth though so even when they negotiate the CBA again I doubt they do anything about itThe problem is that they are valuable when they're young and they don't have mileage on them. Did you notice that 2 RB's were picked in the first 12 picks this year? But they are tied to the rookie contract and then can be franchised. By that time they are 5 seasons in, usually around 27 years old, and have tons of wear and tear from overuse in many cases.I have nothing against labor; I am merely saying that the RBs should not get special treatment from the league to make up for how the market has shifted against them. Stud RBs are not that valuable anymore. It is that simple.why are you against treating labor fairly? can everyone just get a new job? the actors striking? people at UPS?Unjust is subjective, but if RBs don't like it, no one is forcing them to play that position. It was obvious years ago that RBs were becoming less valuable, and the current crop all chose to stay at the position and enter the NFL and play it, so there it is.Because it's unjust. It's the only position where players take that type of physical abuse. And the better you are the more abuse you take. Then after 4 or 5 years they spit you out.Why should RBs get this special treatment?The kicker is teams can run them into the ground with no repercussions. Will never happen but really need a cap on the # of carries. Also should be able to negotiate a new contract after 2 years and change the rules for franchise tags on RBs
The bottom line is that position isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be (it is far more valuable to have a running game, which you can achieve through RBBC, than it is to have a stud RB), and the market has adjusted accordingly.
It's the same with the rookie wage scale- if they give rookies more money, that leaves less for veterans. Pretty sure that isn't something that the broader league or their union would support (for good reason IMO).