Hey MHR, here's a little bit of perspective from the other side of the world. Might make you rethink your view on the Owners vs. Players and what they're all fighting for. Here's a snippet from an article written about Australia's premier Rugby League competition - far and beyond the most accomplished in the world (note, for those who have some idea this is League, not Union).
How does it work?
The NRL Salary Cap for 2010 is $4.1m for the 25 highest paid players at each club. If each player was paid an equal amount, they would get $164,000 each.
Each club can exercise its discretion in relation to how much individual players are paid, providing that total payments do not exceed the $4.1m cap.
In addition to the $4.1m Salary Cap for top 25 players, each club may spend up to an additional $350,000 on players outside the top 25 who play in the NRL competition.
So let's say that the AVERAGE salary of an NRL player is $164,000 (and our $ is a few cents stronger than the USD at the moment).
Naturally our franchise owners aren't nearly as well off as the owners of NFL franchises, but considering just how much the NFL players are asking for, don't you think it's a little blown out of proportion? These players play a 26 week season plus a finals series, and the best players then play State of Origin on Wednesday nights during the season, and the national representative sides then have a further test season.
Personally I think the NFL players need to realise just how much more they're being paid than their counterparts elsewhere, I think they should be paid more, they have more coverage and a larger market... but rookies in the NFL would earn more than many of the "Pro-Bowl" calibre players in the NRL.