Jobu said:
As for revenue sharing, a cap simply can't work without it. The fact that the owners aren't interested just goes to show you that they couldn't give a **** about the health of each franchise and the league as a whole.
What? Of course a cap works without revenue sharing. In fact, it works better *without* it.
Take your current split between the "haves" and the "have-nots", 10 haves / 20 have-nots, whatever you think it is. Without revenue sharing, only the "haves" will be near the cap, while the "have-nots" will be much lower than the cap, at whatever level they can afford. That's essentially what we have now, a few huge salaries, some middling folks, and a bunch way below that.
Now add "meaningful revenue sharing". What have you done? The "haves" still have lots of cash, so they stay at the cap level. But now the "have-nots" have *become* "haves". You've just given them $10-$15 million dollars each, or whatever. And what happens to that cash? It gets put right into player salaries so those teams can compete, and now each of those teams has a much higher payroll, and are now near the cap level.
Result?
Total payroll league wide is much higher with revenue sharing than without.
Which is why the league is against revenue sharing, and the players are insisting on it.