Yes, in Borges' article that's clear. But I'm not sure if that's real or just an owner negotiating tactic. The article made it sound like the Players' reps weren't expecting the language on the overage.
That might just be a curveball.
I think Light is onto the crux of the matter though with revenue sharing. That was what held up the last CBA and caused the opt out language to be installed in the first place. There's no reason to believe that the thing that caused all the acrimony last time isn't the very thing causing all the acrimony this time, especially since it wasn't solved to the owner's satisfaction. I think the owners have some justification about revenue sharing BUT I do not know why we are constantly talking about expenses and salary caps and overages IF the owners are so concerned about sharing with owners. Is it because they don't trust one another? So as to make negotiations publicly about sharing? Is it because putting the onus on sharing on players (where it should be) somehow a losing PR proposition?
I just don't get it.
As the details of the owners' last offer comes out, it's becoming more and more clear that it was, at best, a PR gambit intended make it look like they were compromising and the players weren't. At worst, it was an attempt to pull one over on the players, and an insult to the intelligence of the players' counsel. Under their final offer - conveniently presented to the union only hours before the deadline - they would have gotten back all of the "off the top" money they were supposedly compromising on, just "off the bottom" instead.
What Light was pointing out is what I've been arguing during the entire thread - collectively, the league revenues are as high as they've ever been, and are growing much faster than the leagues' overall costs. It's just that the windfall is so unevenly distributed among the 32 franchises that you have a handful of franchises that really are just breaking even - only the owners are negotiating as if they're all cash-strapped.
Why they're doing this is pretty obvious - there are maybe 8 teams that truly need a boost in revenue in order to have money to spend to improve the franchise, and the other 24 owners would rather help those 8 teams shake the money out of the players than pony up for it themselves, and not without good reason.
For all of the league's most successful and influential owners, reopening the revenue-sharing can of worms can only end badly, with them having to share more of their individual franchise's local revenues with their less successful colleagues. Now, if they start including more revenue sources in the revenue sharing system, in order to make the amount of money they've been earning, they not only have to keep running their own franchise's well, they now need to get the Fords, Bidwells, Browns, etc. to start turning their franchises around.
That's not likely to happen any time soon - so in reality, the Krafts, Snyders, Jones would instead be looking at a future in which they're working harder to squeeze more money out of their franchises to make up for the Wilsons and York's inability or unwillingness to do the same with their own teams.
So instead, the successful owners are extra-motivated to go after the players for the money, because the last thing they want is for their fortunes to be even more tied up with those of their deadbeat colleagues.
