IIRC there was a CBA in effect and it wasn't the players that opted out of it. So where's all the usual outrage along the lines of "X player had a contract, so honor it" that one hears when a player holds out for more $$$? Sounds a bit inconsistent to me. Besides, as I've mentioned before, the players aren't the ones demanding that the free market for their relatively rare talents be abolished-the owners are.
Second, while many of the players make big bucks, most of them don't. The non superstars do make a nice chunk of change to be sure, but the $300-$400K types that spend a couple or three years in the league are taking the same risks of injury and shortened lifespan that the other players are.
So tell me something. If you were an NFL player with a good chance of only getting two or three years to make real money, try to tell me you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to maximize your earnings while you could. Hell if we're honest, we all do that--and most of us risk little more than a paper cut every now and then. So the players are human in wanting to maximize their earnings, just like the rest of us. Big surprise there.
So I get that you don't care how long a given player is in the league or what happens to them...as long as you get your football. So then is it fair to expect the players to care about whether we fans have to go without a few weeks of football? (poor babies!!) So if you don't like it, vote with your feet. There's always soccer after all.