The NFL owners want to increase drug testing

The final issue in need of a resolution is increased drug testing. The NFL owners want to increase drug testing because they want to make sure there are no players in the league that have a competitive advantage over other players as a result from steroids or any other performance enhancing drug. The NFL Players Association does not want increased drug testing because they feel it invades the player's personal privacy. Both sides have valid points, but like the other two issues, I believe a fair resolution is possible. Since the NFL Players Association does not want to increase drug testing because they feel it invades the player's personal privacy, I propose that they increase drug testing, but schedule all tests so each player knows when they are going to be tested. I would also propose that these tests be frequent enough so players could not take illegal drugs, and then stop taking them in time to pass the scheduled drug tests. I believe both sides would agree to this. The NFL owners would benefit in getting what they want, increased drug testing. And the NFL Players Association would get what they want because these drug tests would be scheduled, so player's personal privacy would not be invaded as it would if the drug tests were unannounced and random. I believe these are fair proposals for each of the three issues keeping a new collective bargaining agreement from happening.

There are three other actions that could be done to try and find a solution to this problem. But, all three of these actions would result in an NFL lockout. One action would be to do nothing, which would result in both sides being unhappy and a lockout to occur. The second action is for the owners to try and get everything they want from negotiations. Again, this would result in a lockout, as the NFL Players Association would not agree to a new collective bargaining agreement. The final action that could be taken is the opposite of number two. The NFL Players Association could try and get everything they want from negotiations. Again, this would result in an inevitable lockout. My proposal is very possible and should be enacted. In my proposal, both sides get a little, as well as concede a little. No side is a big winner or big loser. To me, this is the only way to come to an agreement; both sides have to meet in the middle. As I stated earlier, if both sides are not able to meet in the middle, the consequences could be even bigger then people think.