...except not really about the union aspect (hopefully).
The O'Bannon trial starts this Monday, and SBN has put up a primer here. It contains this interesting (to me) tidbit:
The plaintiffs are asking for group licensing for players. Rather than each player getting paid on his or her market worth, the players would split revenues evenly,
Is this correct? If so, that's a big relief to me. Having a model where players are all paid the same seems to preserve the overall competitive aspects of the game while allowing the players to be a little better taken care of. Schools (boosters) would not be outbidding each other for recruits (recruits would be picking schools on factors other than just the payday, and so the competition would be on the field instead of off it). And there would be no highly paid prima donnas on the team.
I would also imagine that when the money is split 85 ways on each team, the players are more comfortable but not NFL-rich. Watching millionaires play a game is just not all that appealing to me, but it'd be good if all the players could get a few thousand more maybe.
So who does this piss off? Geaux Crimson? Roscoe? Cecil.honeybunchesofoates? Adam Smith? Karl Marx?