Bill Brasky
03-12-2006, 02:00 PM
The quest for a new NFL collective bargaining agreement was never about the owners versus the players. The league knew the players' association, once the weakest in sports, finally had its act together. There was no doubt the owners would to have to surrender a larger cut of the colossal revenue pie.
How big a piece the players would receive was relatively incidental to reaching an agreement. The central issue was the manner in which owners would address the widening disparity in gross team revenues and ensure a long-term competitive balance in a sport that worships at the altar of parity. It's on that front the league failed, and miserably so.
What the NFL has done is widen the chasm between large- and small-market teams. Franchises such as Buffalo and Cincinnati that spend to the cap would incur $20 million in player salary increases over the next two years, a burden that exceeds what they'll receive from the NFL's laughable, bare-bones revenue-sharing plan.
It's no wonder Bills owner Ralph Wilson was struggling to comprehend the finer points of the deal. Who could make sense of backward logic that places a greater financial burden on the franchises least equipped to bear it?
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060312/1058979.asp?tbd1058979.asp
How big a piece the players would receive was relatively incidental to reaching an agreement. The central issue was the manner in which owners would address the widening disparity in gross team revenues and ensure a long-term competitive balance in a sport that worships at the altar of parity. It's on that front the league failed, and miserably so.
What the NFL has done is widen the chasm between large- and small-market teams. Franchises such as Buffalo and Cincinnati that spend to the cap would incur $20 million in player salary increases over the next two years, a burden that exceeds what they'll receive from the NFL's laughable, bare-bones revenue-sharing plan.
It's no wonder Bills owner Ralph Wilson was struggling to comprehend the finer points of the deal. Who could make sense of backward logic that places a greater financial burden on the franchises least equipped to bear it?
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060312/1058979.asp?tbd1058979.asp