Partially right - the owners outbid each other for the services of players, but based on the laws of supply and demand, if there was nobody watching the NFL players simply wouldn't make as much. So yes, owners are a very small factor in determining market value, i.e. how much they are willing to pay - but nowhere near the whole story.and who decides market value? why the owners of course since they are hiring!!!! not the fans...not gross revenues...none of that: it's what the company is willing to pay. players can withhold their services if they like - but not get paid. the players went on strike and a CBA the owners didn't want ensued. either way...that is not germane to what is going on today...which is high stakes poker being played out in the courts. to repeat...I've reached the stage where I no longer care......if the Union lawyers get what they want the players will suffer in the long run (as always happens when Unions get involved) as will the fans....especially those at the bottom of the pay scale. I'm laughing at the absurdity of mega-millionaires like Manning and Brady filing a lawsuit ostensibly for "fair pay".... I hope these cats all roast in you know where while 14 million+ enjoy the perks of unemployment!!!
but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy because there's a U somewhere in the conversation....go for it!!!!
NOW you are touching on the true problem in developing another CBA - some owners are willing to pay more than others, and some owners CAN pay more than others. THIS is why the salary cap was enacted, THIS is why revenue sharing was put together.