[stupac2]

Ultimately the problem is that the NFLPA is super weak, precisely because most NFL players have such short careers they're not willing to strike. If the owners were actually forced to confront going a season or two without any games, then the players would get a much bigger slice of the pie. But the players won't strike so owners have all the cards.

(That's ignoring the parts that are simply math, there's more money in the NFL, sure, but not enough to compensate for the brobdingnagian roster sizes. And things like making contracts guaranteed or increasing salary minimums would mostly change the distribution of money across players, and it's not clear upfront how big that change would be. I don't think anyone negotiating the old CBA saw that it would mean "stars and rookies" was how rosters would be built.)

[stupac2]

Ultimately the problem is that the NFLPA is super weak, precisely because most NFL players have such short careers they're not willing to strike. If the owners were actually forced to confront going a season or two without any games, then the players would get a much bigger slice of the pie. But the players won't strike so owners have all the cards.

(That's ignoring the parts that are simply math, there's more money in the NFL, sure, but not enough to compensate for the brobdingnagian roster sizes. And things like making contracts guaranteed or increasing salary minimums would mostly change the distribution of money across players, and it's not clear upfront how big that change would be. I don't think anyone negotiating the old CBA saw that it would mean "stars and rookies" was how rosters would be built.)