It boggles the mind, really, of the average fan.  The NFL is a billion-dollar plus a year business.  Even the "small market" teams pull in hundreds of millions a year in revenues, and teams like New England, Washington and Dallas get even more.  But the NFL is on the verge of throwing it all away, of potentially destroying the league that we've come to know by the impending crisis regarding the CBA.

 The last football strike was in 1987, and 3 games were played by replacement players.  The owners basically shoved the players into a corner and forced them not only back to the bargaining table, but went on and essentially ran roughshod over the players' union.  That union has long been considered among the weakest in American professional sports, and for that reason.  In 1991, the union forced a concession to allow free agency in football as an incentive to sign an extension of the CBA.  Now, on March 3rd, the deadline for the CBA passes, and 2006 becomes a very strange year for football teams, and 2007 looms as an uncapped year.

The real trouble here probably isn't with the unions' demands.  The game's revenue stream is quite high and virtually guaranteed.  Teams like Pittsburgh sell out every single home game, no questions asked, so its not like there's a lot at stake in terms of an uneven revenue flow.  But what has happened is that smaller franchises - Indy and Green Bay come to mind - don't have the same revenue stream that the large franchises do because of their stadium design.  Dallas, Washington and New England are all "big market" franchises, and have a myraid of other revenue streams at their disposal.  And just like in baseball, therein lies the rub.

It sickens me to watch the internal fighting of the NFL owners over revenue sharing.  They have the strongest game, the most passionate fans, and the widest media coverage.  Baseball would kill for football's wall-to-wall coverage.  But the owners are squabbling over money.  What makes me ill is that the Dan Snyder's and Jerry Jones's of the game want to keep more of their money, which in turn they could conceivably funnel to their players, ensuring they always have the best players, the best teams and win more titles than smaller franchises.  The salary cap kept the playing field level.  It ensured a competitive fairness on the field because certain teams couldn't overspend to keep players while others had to struggle just to pay their rookies.  But all of that has been thrown into doubt because the owners are not farsighted enough to come to an agreement with the union first, and then handle their internal problems after the fact.

In all of this, the union has to be snickering.  I don't feel they are getting short-changed here - I mean, those 53 players are getting approximately $94 million a year in total salaries.  That's a hell of a lot of money to pay athletes.  They are seeing how rich the owners are getting, and want their fair share.  After all, the reason the owners are making so much is that the players on performing well on the field.  They want approximately 60% of the revenues guaranteed towards player salaries.  The sticking point at the moment is on two fronts.  First, what is the base figure for the 60% - what types of revenues are included or excluded.  Second, the percentage itself - the union wants around 60%, the owners are offering around 56%.  Still, its workable to come to some kind of agreement regarding the percentage, so long as the base figure is also fair.

No, football seems to be heading down a perilous path, and I for one am disgusted this time with the owners.  Usually, in these situations, I'm for the owners - I think the players have too much power and get paid too much money.  But in football, where the tables are relatively stable, I think they are entitled to a collective raise.  In this case, I'm for the players - hoping that their high-stakes gambling forces the owners to come to their senses and get a deal hammered out.