While I don't agree with many of his radio acolytes, who seem to be convinced that Bob Kraft bought the New England Patriots as a community-service project, I do believe that he's a decent guy, and about as humane an NFL owner as you're likely to find. (Admittedly, the bar for that is not high) But it should never be forgotten what a complete NFL company man he is, either. For example, yesterday, in a USA Today story about the possible upcoming NFL labor meltdown, he told the paper:

"We want to do a deal that's good for both sides. As owners, we assume the risks, debt and cost in growing the business. … None of my other businesses spend 60% of the revenues on salaries."

Lord, no.

First of all, as to his other businesses, nobody's paying him $169 a pop to watch his other employees make cardboard boxes. Moreover, most of the employees in his other businesses likely will be walking when they're 60, and are not at dramatically increased risk of dementia simply because of the nature of their jobs. (Enough with the "assuming risk" stuff, too. NFL owners work within self-regulating monopoly. They get tax breaks that oil companies would envy. They blackjack cash-strapped cities for more goodies every chance they get, and too many cities give in. They're not digging the Panama Canal. None of them was going to be selling apples if they hadn't reopened the CBA.) The argument is cheap, stupid, and wrong.

It would be nice if Commissioner Roger Goodell could do a better job of pretending he isn't in management's pocket on this one. It would be nice if Kraft and his fellow owners would let the labor side see the actual books. It would be nice if they would admit that, whatever financial problems they actually have are less the result of salaries and more the result of grandiose real-estate transactions, and ego-driven, debt-ridden elephantine stadium projects like the one in Dallas. It would be nice if, generally, people would look at what football players do for a living and realize that, of all the athletes in team sports, they risk more for less reward than do any of the others, and that they do so in a system where not even contracts mean what they say. That's what "assuming risk" really is.