I think Rick Reilly at EPSN has it all wrong. So what if the owners are billionaires? Their personal net worths are not the point, but rather how much how much revenue their teams make. So what if a family has owned a team for millions of years or other owners inherited the team? It's important to remember that the NFL is a business, it has to make money. Reilly uses bullshit quasi-socialist straw man arguments to make his non existent point. The owner's haven't "slapped proof on the table"? Uh, do you think they're asking for more money without making a half way decent business case for it?
Let's face it, the economy of sports is changing. Every sports league is trying to lure fans back into the stadiums and arenas. Why bother paying for a ticket, driving, parking and over priced food when you can watch the game in the comfort of your own home on your brand new kick ass 3D tv? So, naturally, there needs to be plenty of reinvestment in team facilities to make them more attractive to fans. With the way state and local budgets are looking nowadays, there's little taxpayer financing to be had.
This is not to say I side with the owners. I'm simply not privy to all the details. The NFL is a very dangerous sport. (Personally, I think the pervasive amount of safety gear each player wears paradoxically makes the game more dangerous.) Head injuries and player health care are important issues. It's hard to feel bad for either side in this debate.
The rookie pay scale is a relatively uncontroversial demand. I really don't know why the players are dragging their feet on this one. The longer negotiations go on, player lose out on bonus for various types of off season training. I think the players should agree to the new revenue split and rookie pay scale if the NFL agrees not to extend the season for another 5-10 years and offers up some better health care. That sounds pretty fair to me.
The deadline is totally arbitrary. There's going to be an agreement with this money at stake for both sides.