Champ Kind said:
Ok, I see your point. I just think ascribing responsibility to the fans - or consumers - in this case is wrong. I mean, when I think of labour negotiations, I think of it between management and labour. If GM locks out its workers and the next year posts an operating profit, would you 'blame' its consumers who continue to buy GM's vehicles? I would call this understanding the market, not saying the consumers are responsible for the strike.
I would "blame" them for not providing a disincentive for GM to lockout their employees again, sure, but only because that's true. The reason it doesn't work as an analogy though is because people tend to be fairly rational when it comes to buying cars. I've never heard someone say "If GM locks out their employees I'm never buying another GM car" or getting mad about GM labour issues unless they're directly affected.
I think it's largely a semantic difference between what we're saying. If I'm saying "blame" and you're saying it's a condition of the market, I think you'd have to agree that because fans create that market that they're in part responsible for its conditions. The market the fans have created is such that there is no real disincentive not to lockout the players.