But the NFLPA still hurts top performers. The joint negotiating in the NFL absolutely leads to the highest paid players being paid less than they would without a union. The revenue split, the franchise tag, the minimum salary, the rookie pay scale (arguable), and the veteran benefits all lead to less of the pie being available to the top tier players and less negotiating power. The salary escrow provision is a great example of an out-of-date rule that exists due to CBA negotiations and 100% hurts the top earners (while also providing zero actual benefits - it just existed because it has been there for decades and it's an effort to change anything when doing collective bargaining).
Not that I think any of this is bad since the NFL is brutal to its lowest earners, but it absolutely hurts the highest earners.
Yes, and democracy hurts the top aristocrats. But we don't tend to view antidemocratic aristocrats very kindly, even if maintaining antidemocratic systems are good for them.
Some people experience less optimal outcomes in a union. Those people are free to resist unionization. What I don't like is the claim that, because some specific high performers can no longer negotiate as well, everybody else should shut up about unionization.
Not that I think any of this is bad since the NFL is brutal to its lowest earners, but it absolutely hurts the highest earners.