This is so interesting. It suggests that if half of revenue went to players, basically all franchises would operate at a loss. Am I reading that right? I suppose that operating a stadium for 81 games a year is a higher cost than the other sports.
This sounds childish, but I wonder what owners ACTUALLY, REASONABLY hope to achieve with a salary cap. If they want to guarantee that they keep a bigger piece of the pie, the players are going to fight that tooth and nail. If they want to increase competition, a salary cap won't keep CHW, ATH, and PIT from tanking.
Huge small market bias here, but both sides want things to change, so what to do? Here's another plausible list.
- more money goes to minor league, pre-arb, and arbitration players
- the owners get more taxation on extreme salaries or extreme payrolls (enough that it acts like a soft cap)
- some of that taxation goes toward player benefits
- some of that taxation goes toward revenue sharing
- penalties (payments into a player fund of some sort) for tanking or tiny payrolls