If he
really said that a 17% cap rollback was "70's era salary," then the entire interview is a joke. Rolling back the cap 17% from 2009 takes you all the way back to the exploitative era of...2006-7.
As for shared vs. unshared revenues (NOT profits, revenues), we have to remember why that distinction exists to begin with. I am nothing like a cap expert, but it's pretty clear that "shared vs. unshared" is the linchpin to the entire financial framework of the salary-capped NFL. It's how they balance the collective action of a league with 32 individual business owners, and the need for on-field parity with incentive for individual initiative.
Other more informed posters may correct me, but here's my understanding:
The league shares basic football-generated income equally. This includes national broadcasting and internet revenue, licensed merchandise, and ticket sales. But auxiliary stadium-generated revenue like concessions, naming rights, parking, luxury boxes and signage remain with the team that earned them (i.e. unshared). That's how teams like the Patriots pay for building and operating first-class stadiums. If they only got 1/32 of the revenue for all that, they couldn't afford the stadium at all. And they wouldn't have the incentive to aggressively pursue that revenue. And so that part of league revenue simply wouldn't exist -- and the Dallas Cowboys franchise wouldn't be worth any more than the Jacksonville Jaguars.
The cap is calculated based on shared revenue because its whole purpose is to promote parity. If you included unshared, you'd either be giving each team a different cap number or setting the cap at a level that most teams couldn't afford to come close to.
So it seems to me that saying "the league has to include unshared revenues in the cap calculation" is essentially saying "we have to blow up the entire financial framework of the modern NFL and start from scratch."