"and the players have NO right to set their own salary! Who do they think they are?"
These are two more go-to arguments I'm hearing more of lately, and basically ... please stop it. I don't know whether people are saying this because they think it's what a good capitalist should say, or because they are simply applying the wrong set of rules to the situation, but either way, all it does is demonstrate a total lack of comprehension about what's going on.
It's the same principle as the "if they don't like it, they can get other jobs" line. All three of these involve the logic you would use in disputes over BLUE-COLLAR jobs, primarily involving UNSKILLED LABOR, or at the very least, semi-skilled labor for which there is an essentially unlimited supply of qualified workers. When you try to apply them to the NFL, which involves jobs in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, all you end up with is a stupid argument.
If you are making these kinds of arguments, please get this simple fact through your head: In the entertainment business, which includes professional sports, the employers do not occupy the same status as they do in a "regular" job. The employers are far more dependent on the employees, because of the scarce commodity they bring to the table, which is the ability to ... well, entertain people in some form. "Putting up the money and taking the risk" does not make the owners any less dependent on the players for that scarce commodity, which is why you can throw most of these conventional arguments right out the window.
Put it this way -- should Johnny Depp just take whatever the studio decides because "you or I would be happy to do his job" for $200K a year? And if he doesn't like it, he should go get a job at Safeway? Somehow, I don't think so. You or I couldn't do his job, and neither could very many people at all, duh.
What if you were the CEO at Universal Studios, and one day you decided you were unhappy at actors making $10 million a picture, so for your upcoming blockbuster film, you banned any actor currently making more than $500K from playing a part. Would there be "plenty of other actors who would be happy to have the opportunity?" Of course there would. Would as many people be willing to pay to watch it? Of course not.
Studios are willing to pay Johnny Depp more for a single film than most people make in a lifetime because he sells more movie tickets than you or I could in a lifetime. Whether you think it's rewarding work or useful work, or think he's a good actor is irrelevant; he generates far more revenue for his employers than some bozo off the street ever could, and even substantially more than other professional actors could. Entertainers are paid to put butts in seats and eyeballs on TV screens, and to be a national-level entertainer, you have to be very good at it.
That is the reason why Peyton Manning can dictate his own pay, Johnny Depp can dictate his own pay, U2 can dictate their own pay, Stephen King can dictate his own pay -- and you, Ron at the Shell station, cannot. They control a scarce resource that the public demands, and they are paid accordingly, getting the best deal they can for themselves. It is completely fair. And THAT is capitalism for you.