The headline — not just here, but in most places — is “Roger Goodell wants shorter NFL preseason.’’ The NFL commissioner has nearly unanimous consent. Who really wants to see these? Play in these? Coach in these? Attend, park and pay $9 for a beer for these?

Goodell expressed his thoughts about shortening the preseason to a Giants fan forum on Monday, so at least he’s on the record about it. But by no means is this a sworn statement to which he’s legally bound. If it comes up some other time, the question won’t necessarily be, “How soon can you drop these games?”

It might be more like, “What’s it worth to you if we do?”

MORE: NFL to reportedly work with NFLPA on marijuana study

Even he recognized that: Speaking to reporters later, according to Newsday, Goodell said, “Any change in the (overall game) structure, we said that we would collectively bargain (with the players union).”

That might happen when the current agreement expires in four years, or before then if both sides work it out, Goodell acknowledged. But there’s no reason to believe it won’t come at a price.

It’s going to be a negotiation. It’s going to involve leverage. Two meaningless exhibition games from which the league and its teams keep collecting revenue aren’t going to just disappear because, as Goodell said, that’s the first thing fans mention that they’d like fixed.

And definitely not just because the players want them gone. As of Tuesday morning — the day before the first full slate of 2017 preseason games begin with Panthers-Texans, Falcons-Dolphins and Vikings-Bills — the league is not yet in the mood to just give anything to the players. Not if it would be considered a loss on the NFL’s part.

MORE: How Goodell stepped in Ezekiel Elliott investigation

For what it’s worth, the trade-off the NFL wanted last time the labor agreement was up for grabs in 2011 — an 18-game regular season — is not being pushed this time. Or so Goodell has said. At the Super Bowl in February, at another fan forum, he answered a question about adding two games with: “Will it get discussed? Possibly. I don't see a big movement that way, though.’’

According to CNN, he then acknowledged three players joining him at the forum — Eli Manning, Larry Fitzgerald and Greg Olson — and said, “Certainly, I’ve got three ‘No’ votes here." All three had, to put it mildly, expressed their disinterest in playing two more games.

Again, though: not a binding contract. If push comes to shove in 2021, and the NFL finds itself in a tough spot — say, if the ratings dip or loss of advertisers grows from a one-time aberration to an actual trend — there’s no reason to believe it won't demand that 18-game season to recoup any possible losses.

Everything the players want to change, from contract structures to the weed policy to player discipline to, maybe, an unprecedented power play against Colin Kaepernick intended to send a message to the entire workforce … they’re all bargaining chips for one side or another.

The league isn’t going to just make a gift to the football world of cutting a game or two off the preseason. Not even as an olive branch to frustrated fans tired of paying hard-earned money for games that don’t count and often hurt more than help.

Nobody can argue against the sentiment of a shorter preseason. The execution, though, is another story.