If the owners were doing that you may have a point but they are not.
The owners are saying they want a larger share than the last deal called for.
Just because people respond that they must prove they are poor doesnt mean that is the owners argument.
Untrue. The owners have stated that their proposed increase in the amount taken off the top of Total Revenues was because the the amount off the top under the previous CBR was insufficient to insure that all the NFL's teams had enough after expenses to reinvest in franchise and league growth.
That is has been, the owners' argument.
Furthermore, your suggestion that it's not the owners' argument is a very weak equivocation, for it leads to the question of what, then, is their argument. To argue that they don't need one is weaker yet - if they don't provide a rationale, than there's no reason for the NFLPA to take their demand seriously, and no reason for the mediator to believe that they're negotiating in good faith. And while the mediator cannot dictate binding terms, there are severe consequences to being found to be negotiating in bad faith.
So, no, in good faith negotiations within an organization, you can't make a demand "just 'cause."
That is not what is going on.
1) No one is 'giving back' anything, there is no deal in place, and wasn't last year either.
Meaningless sophistry. Clearly the "give back" refers to the terms of the most recent CBA, and clearly, the most recent agreement is the logical jumping off point for negotiating the next. The owners are 100% entitled to want to change the terms however they want, which logically would lead the NFLPA to ask why the previous terms weren't working for them, and again, you don't say "Because!" in good faith negotiations.
2) The Packers financials showed 5mill in profit out of 258 mill of revenues.
If you feel it is acceptable to generate 258 mill in revenues, pay 160 of it to players, spend another 93 on other expenses and retain 5, then you have never operated a business.
The Packers are hardly a representative franchise for the entire NFL. After all, they're toward of the very bottom of the league in terms of revenue, and are the league's only not-for-profit franchise.
3) The idea that the negoatiation is about giving money to poorly run franchises is simply wrong.
No. It's really not.
The league is arguing that not all of the teams are sufficiently profitable to be able to afford to reinvest in franchise growth. But on the whole, NFL team revenues have been increasing fairly rapidly. The franchises in question that need additional money to be able to afford reinvestment have been seeing shrinking margins during 5 years of huge rises in the popularity and marketability of NFL football.
If you can't even tread water in a bull market, I'd say "poorly run" doesn't even cover it.