[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by QuestGAV

It's 56 vs 60% that they're arguing for. No one is starving either way, so I don't know who is "right", I just want a solid NFL product on the field next September.

The argument is more than 56% and 60%.

One reason these talks were more difficult is that the players asked for a change in the system.

Until now, they received their money primarily from television and ticket revenues. This time, they requested their share from all team revenues, including outside money generated by everything from parking fees to stadium naming rights.

That led to difficult negotiations, in part, because the teams themselves are having their own dispute over that money because of the disparity in outside income made by low-revenue teams like Buffalo and Indianapolis and high-revenue teams like Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia. Union leaders had suggested that it would be hard to reach agreement on a labor contract until the owners settled their own differences.

Both sides seemed ready to compromise on Sunday, largely because of the pressure of impending free agency, which was supposed to begin last Friday. However, it was put off for three days so the sides could keep talking.

Negotiations appeared to be at a standstill last Thursday, when the owners took just 57 minutes to reject the union's last offer. But seven hours later, the sides reversed course and started talking again.

Upshaw said he still thinks revenue sharing is the key, although Henderson said it was never discussed. Upshaw also said the players would do as well or better sticking with the current agreement.

Basically the players kidnapped the owners by forcing the revenue sharing issue on the table. Since it's something the owners can't agree among themselves, it's a glaring weakness.