Please explain exactly how any of these items are of more benefit to the actual players than the billions of dollars of lost income? Do you think that the owners are willing to do profit sharing to fund these activities?

Do you believe the average fan is willing to stand up for this? That's what it will take. Literally for millions of fans to stop watching football, stop going to the games, stop purchasing franchise items, and stop supporting any advertisers associated with NFL football. Only a legitimate threat of eliminating the funding of the NFL unless these changes are made would have any possible impact.

The bottom line is that none of the 4 principle stakeholders (owners, players, media, advertisers) have any incentive to make the kind of changes you propose.

So it seems like wishful thinking to me.

SFIAH

Not sure what this has to do with the fans. The average fan believes players are overpaid and most fans would welcome a pay-for-performance structure. On a small scale the NFL already has a program for underpaid first year players for pay-for-performance.

How would roster expansion aid all 4 shareholder groups? First, 3 more roster spots means 100 more players making $500,000 a year.

Expanding the roster means dressing 8 o-lineman instead of 7, or a third quarterback, or 4th running back. Roster expansion limits wear and tear on everyday players, and gives players who would not normally make a 46 man roster a chance to see the field.

It has to do with the fans because only the fans think that players are overpaid as you just stated.

and the fans drive ticket sales and merch sales, so yes, if they are disenchanted with the Gallettes and Byrds of the world, those revenue numbers will drop, and already have.
Less than half of NFL sells out, merch sales are down, and ratings were lower than '16.

At whose expense? I'm trying to get you to see that slice of money to fund this has to come out of the existing pie. So either the owners will have to take a cut on their profits, or the players in the existing structure would have to take a pay cut, or a combination of both. What's the incentive for either group to contribute to funding this?

[/b] With pay-for-performance, not everyone achieves optimum bonuses. You first asked where the extra money would go, so there you are. [/b]



Once again, this only seems to improve things from a fans perspective. None of that helps the 53/46 man squad or the owners. Players want to maximize their income. Owners want to maximize their profits. What you propose helps neither group to do that. So why would either have any incentive to restructure this way?

Not true. An expanded roster would help prolong careers, as well as adding more players who could develop. Overall play would improve. Additionally, injured players still get paid. With an expanded roster teams would have replacements readily available. In other words, it's is not just fans who win

This whole angle seems to be driven from a feeling that players are overpaid and that guaranteed contract dollars makes players lazy and unproductive. Therefore each player should have 1 year prove it contracts with minimal dollars in order to keep them hungry. But it doesn't work because there is $5 billion a year to spend on player salaries and less that 2500 people eligible to receive those funds. Each team is required to spend 89% average of their cap. There's simply too much money to do what you propose.

The NFL isn't a charity. Everyone who's in it is there for the money to some degree. So to me the proposal makes no sense because it in no way helps those who are supposed to fund it.

SFIAH