Acting as an outside arbitrator for a moment here, real quick-n-dirty: The Players have recommended a loose luxury tax system. The Owners, a salary cap linked to revenues. As an Arbirator I would suggest the following: *A moderately restrictive luxury tax system, with a threshold based upon revenues.* This would be the best starting point for further negotiations. The points of further negotiation: 1 - Base threshold Team Payroll (Owners $31m, Players $40m-50m) The most obvious choice would be to find some middle ground here where the luxury tax would kick in. This amount could be adjusted, say if team or league revenues rise or fall, then the Team Payroll threshold could do likewise. Arbitrator suggests: Meet in the middle for a viable option. 2. The luxury tax (Players have suggested 20%-30%, Owners 100%+) Arbitrator suggests: Side with the owners on this point. Anything less than a dollar-for-dollar tax would be ineffective and a waste of paperwork. 3. Owners would also like to add restrictions to or remove salary arbitration options. Arbitrator suggests: further negotiation regarding details. 4. Both would agree on more restrictions for entry level contracts, specifically reducing or elimination of various bonus clause options. Arbitrator suggests: further negotiation regarding details. Concessions: Players offer 5% roll-back on salaries. Arbitrator: Respectable offer, players may want to increase to 10% or greater in exchange for further concessions from the owners. Owners offer more free agency options. Arbitrator: Somewhat reasonable, but may prove to be counter-productive in the long run. Be wary of 'signing bonus' as a loophole. Might have to protect owners from themselves on this one. Arbitrators Conclusion: A salary cap is nothing more than the equivalent to an exceptionally restrictive luxury tax system. The parties are currently engaged in media banter in an attempt to pressure one another into further concessions. A poor strategy and will prove hurtful to both parties and the industry as a whole. There is no reason the two parties should not be back at the negotiation table.