Hmmm, an interesting angle I hadn't heard before. This lockout is really an owner vs. owner revenue-sharing fight.
That is, according to Ray Ratto at CBS Sportsline.
The owners like each other far less than they like the players, and trust each other not at all. It's why all the reports of an imminent settlement always sound more like begging than fact-finding.
The lockout has been covered mostly as your standard management-labor fight because it is easier to get readers/viewers/listeners to pick sides based on their own preconceived notions of unions vs. owners.
Ratto is being a little hyperbolic, tho.The lockout has been covered mostly as your standard management-labor fight because it is easier to get readers/viewers/listeners to pick sides based on their own preconceived notions of unions vs. owners.
But it isn't that at all, and really never has been. This is owners against owners, which makes for lousy TV, lousy reading, lousy debates, lousy everything.
He can spin it however he wants, but it's definitely an owner vs. player standoff. The ownership "haves" vs. the "have nots" really isn't anything new. It just rarely gets the pub.
I mean, when you've got guys like Jerry Jones and Snyder who are ponying up their own brazillians to build their stadiums and then have to share a portion of their revenues with teams that get public funding for stadiums and/or are running close to the red, you're going to have some discord. Standard. Plain and simple. Those guys are douches, but they do get the short end of the stick in that respect.
Players got a great, great deal last time they were at the table. Ever ask yourself why we've heard over and over that "the players are willing to just maintain the status quo" on a deal that's 5 years old? Owners took it dry and want a do over. The "haves" aren't going to want to keep sharing their revenues at the same clip if they're gonna cave some to the players.