The Payton Mannings have little to gain or lose in the whole matter.
It is difficult to get those guys to stand up for the common players as they have been.
The rookies are the one's who get hit the hardest, and it is the rookies who are in the crosshairs of the owners, with the rookie-cap proposal.
Even with the 18 game schedule proposal, the superstars are financially taken care of with the increased odds of injury.
It is the common player who is at the highest risk. More playing time for common players means more opportunity for injury. And a less serious injury has a far better chance of ending the career of Garrett Reynolds (Falcons OT) than that of a Tom Brady.
The superstar players don't need the union to protect them for much. It is the common player that the union stands for.
Your suggestion that this lockout (imposed by the owners, and only the owners) is hard on common players and should be ended on their behalf is inverted logic.
Every single concession that the players have been asked to take is going to come out of the common players a**, not Payton Manning's.
The players who would be best off to accept whatever the owners are offering would be those who have the big contracts.
What does that have to do with them not being allowed to go to concerts?