Literally none of this is true.
Quarterbacks and owners control this league. The only difference is that the Packers don’t have an owner. Made it possible to nearly move the team out of Green Bay last time they didn’t have a quarterback.
What I said is all true.
Green Bay Packers, as an organization are much bigger than Aaron Rodgers.
The only reason they would relocate, as you referred to, would be if the team became so valuable that the municipality of Green Bay deemed it to be a lucrative offer that they didn't want to pass up.
They wouldn't relocate due to "financial hardship". The team has been financially successful for a very long time.
In fact, their ownership structure makes them less likely to ever relocate, rather than one owner saying "I want out of football; I will sell to the highest bidder, regardless of location".
Aaron Rodgers is almost meaningless to the Packers franchise from a financial standpoint.
A 13-3 season with a Super Bowl vs. a 0-16 season? It really makes no difference in Green Bay. The team will sell-out and all the city of Green Bay will rejoice at their earnings from collectively owning the team.
The Green Bay Packers are actually one of the teams most equipped to handle this type of "power play" from Rodgers. They are one of the sports franchises most able to say "play for us, or retire and rot".
They might not win many games if he chooses to retire and rot. But they won't really see financial hardship because of it.
The President and GM of Green Bay can sit back and say: "Our team will generate a profit no matter how we perform. So the city won't fire us, because they will still be collecting money. Therefore, we have no reason for us to cave-in to this diva".
And he is 38 years old. He doesn't have many years left. Even more reason to take a stand against him, since you are only losing 1-3 seasons of elite QB play.
The Green Bay Packers were one of America's most popular, most beloved, and highest earning franchises before Aaron Rodgers.
They will remain those things after Rodgers leaves, even if he retires and rots and they don't get anything in return for him.
Rodgers is so small compared to the Green Bay Packers.
This isn't like Brady and the Patriots.
First, Brady delivered so much more success to the Patriots than Rodgers ever did to the Packers.
Second, the Packers have been a much more steady and stable franchise in terms of franchise value over the years, that one player has never made-or-broke their team. The Packers are like the Maple Leafs or Canadiens of the NFL.
I hope Green Bay holds firm and takes a "us or nothing" type of stance. They have the financial flexibility to take this stance. Any time a company takes a strong stand against a manipulative ego-driven diva is a good thing.