Maybe you and some others here know. But I have no clue how those numbers affect team construction. I mean, why is 50-50 or 49-51 or whatever the split a fair number? Why is it fair that an average player makes 5M a year rather than 4.8M or 5.2M? Without knowing the details of their accounting, the only thing I know is that both sides want a bigger slice of the pie. Who gets how much of the pie has no meaning to me.
I don't think one split is more fair than another. There is some split that is the equilibrium of the bargaining power of the two sides. And, there's probably not much strategic difference beween 49% and 51%. But, I do think we'll see a lot of shifts in strategy from dropping the players' share from 57% to whatever it ends up being. That's a big change.
Thanks that makes sense. How often do teams go over the BRI? It shouldn't seem that they do. So does that mean that most players get more than their actual salaries?
Also, does that essentially mean that some teams have to go over the luxury tax. Since it would make more sense to go over, acquire a better player, and not pay the current players more.
