That is a long post, so I'm not really going to itemize next to a quote, it is handy to read, but that would be too much for anyone to go through.
First, you cannot possibly reject that a 'capless' NFL would have a higher revenue split. The NFL owners are fighting to bring the cap down right now to reduce costs. Right off the bat, that tells you that in a 'capless' NFL total labor costs would be much higher. It's common sense. I'm not sure how it can be rejected given everything that has happened over the last 20 years. Free agency put NFL ownership over a barrell. The only way they contained costs before that was by basically forcing a player to negotiate solely with one team. The cap was a compromise insisted upon by the owners to control costs.
Business owners will jump into an 'upside down' market. They do all the time. Heck, all of hollywood is an upside down market. Entertainment, for a number of reasons but particularly the inimitable nature of the people working, is labor first all the time. That isn't a bad thing, considering the other 99% of labor in the world is always purchased at a discount.
I'm not so sure caps improve the parity, as some people like to state. There are perennial winners in the NFL, perhaps not as often as baseball. There are certainly perennial losers as well. And in both the MLB and NFL there are cellar dwellers who creep up ... I mean the MLB over the last decade has had teams from all market sizes win. Sports are not the same as other businesses. They tend to be immunized against poor climates, and simply spending more money doesn't mean you do better.
All the salary caps in the world won't help Buffalo or Cincy or Washington be competitive clubs, yet between the three of them, they made a fortune last season. Because of revenue sharing, tax funded operations, and an extremely favorable deal that controls costs, NFL teams can win zero games and still turn profits.
Basic question: who is worse ... the Detroit Lions or Pittsburgh Pirates or L.A. Clippers? Every sport has a team with absolutely terrible track records and dismal prospects.
Also, you can't possibly reject that the NFLPA has the worst deal in pro sports. No guaranteed contracts, unlike the NHL, NBA and MLB. And the worst revenue split. I think they have slipped to 49 percent last season. The NHL is guaranteed 57%, the NBA has 57%, and baseball fluxuates because there is no fixed cap, but gets as high as 63% and hasn't fallen beneath 52% for decades. I'm not sure on what grounds you can argue that it is the best, besides a quote from a few people that might not be apprised of what other players in other sports get as a total percentage of the revenue.
While it is dubious that caps result in parity, and perhaps you like a cap because you think it does (the issue could be debated both ways in this case although I see little evidence to support the old hat) I for one LIKE that Baseball has no cap. It forces the owners to actually compete against one another. I like the ownership of the Redsox. Why? Because they have in the past operated at a loss (although they make a lot of money cyclically) to win a championship. All of these owners, every one of them, can afford to run red for a season to take a crack at it, and it becomes as if they are actually a part of the community for a minute, which is extremely alien to how businesses usually operate as someone inimical toward the community.
The owners, who are apparently making a lot of money, are asking for a revenue split that will, in the end, be something like 40%. And no guaranteed contracts still. And they are justifying it with artificially low earnings and growth projections that do not match up with anything Wallstreet has come up with for the future of the product. Both Moody's and Forbes have the NFL continuing to grow at 8-10%. The owners are trying to peg growth to something like 4.5% with the owners (conveniently) getting any growth over that amount. This has been the trend in every business over the last 30 years. I will always, always stand against that. Both owners, CEO's, workers, etc, should realize the 'same' increase in profits when business does better, because they always realize the same decrease in profits. The fact that Americans have stopped fighting for it is deeply disturbing and goes so far beyond a bunch of jocks playing a game. But I digress.
That would be, categorically, the worst deal in major sports. Given that the NFL is the most lucrative sport, AND the most training intensive, I can't see how that is justified. At least not without financial transparency.
Truthfully, I am not against a salary cap. I am not against a rookie cap either. I think a rookie cap on the first season with MLB style arbitrated salaries after that point would be a great way to see both sides benefit. Heck, I'm not even against a 'give back', as I can guarantee that union wouldn't be either if they knew that the NFL was operating at a loss -- considering the success rate of unions giving back in cases where the actual business was threatened is 100%, knowing that everyone will choose a job over no job every time.
But the evidence, to just about everyone watching except the small percentage of people that would side with the owners either way, is that the NFL is making tons of money. The evidence we see is that they already engineered this 'lockout' before the recession. And the evidence shows that they have already tride to 'hide' money. I'm sorry, but if you take their word for it, god bless you, but a fool and his money ... as the saying goes.
I AM against owners still jockeying for power in an 'upside down' market that is artificially turned back around, by hiding behind the NFL shield that according to its mandate represents both halves of the partnership although in reality doesn't.
And no, being an association versus being a union isn't shady in the least. I have been in both. They do everything the same. Dropping the 'union' moniker merely gives the players recourse to suit. You cannot start a class action lawsuit if you are part of the NFLPA as a union, because that union is a.) a unified body, and b.) part of the NFL structure the players are suing. Taking the right to sue the NFL away is hack anti-worker stuff. Just because the law mandates that they need to change the official function to sue for damages doesn't mean that there is trickery involved. You can buy the NFL ownership's claims, but the truth is that there may never be a formal NFLPA as a union again. You don't know how this is going to turn out, but the NFLPA, given the skill inherent in the business, doesn't need to collectively bargain at all. All it needs to do is advise. It's formation as a union was at the behest of the owners so they could follow the SSA.
And yes, if the owners don't find those terms agreeable, then I fully support the NFL players' class action lawsuit to seek an injunction that forces play or withdrawal of the anti-trust exemption for a true "open market."
And yeah, just because Kurt Warner says something without thinking doesn't make it true. Adrian Peterson likened playing in the NFL to slavery, but I am sure you consider that untrue.
And finally, because of the exemptions the NFL gets, I sincerely hope they come to their senses and just open their books. If they have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't worry. But you know, as well as I do, that there is something they want to hide. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hiding it.