Brady'sButtBoy said:
No, its called compromise. Without compromise there is chaos.
The entire process is compromise. Why should one side give in but not the other? Both have made concessions to this point, and both feel they have conceeded as much as they want to, or at least that is their negotiating position.
Your original point was they were blindly greedy, my point is that this is a requirement of capitalism, and a good deal would never be struck if either side didn't look out for their best interests.
What leads you to believe there has been no compromise already done? The players have comporomised in accepting a cap, which is awful for them. The owners have compromised in giving an unusually high percentage of their revenues to players.
The bottom line is that owners spend a GREAT DEAL of money to buy and run franchises, and players are in a career that is over usually in their early 30s, so neither can afford to strike a deal that isnt in their best interest just to have a deal. I think you are sweating much more than either side in the negotiations that there is an impasse. Part of negotiation is you must make your concessions painful for the other side, or you will be end up conceeding much more than you want to.
Example, I am selling you something for $10,000, and you want to pay $8,000. We would probably both agree to $9000, but the first side to concede weakens their position. If you say 8500, then I now see the midpoint as 9250 instead of 9000. It may not make everyone feel comfortable from the outside, but no one is giving in what they are willing to until they are forced to.