I think this is one point where having unions/collective bargaining will end up being very beneficial to the owners.

In order for professional sports to come back, the league involved and their player association will have to come to a deal that includes everything from financial issues to safety procedures. I would assume that as long as the organization holds up their end of the bargain in terms of meeting whatever safety requirements were agreed upon in the deal (and any state/local law, of course), they will end up being much more protected than in a non-union situation (especially in a blue state, where many professional teams are).

remaining hurdle, and they are substantial.

It's by far the biggest issue in baseball, where the CBA has no connection between revenue and salaries. Then not to mention the league/PA signed an agreement on how to proceed with a shortened season in March, but didn't include any per-game salary reductions in case of a crowd-less (or crowd-light) season.

In the NFL and NHL, the salary cap is tied to league revenues (in the NHL, players actually have part of their salary held in escrow until the actual league revenue for that season is known...they could lose some/all if revenues are below expectations, get it back if revenues match expectations, or get extra money if revenues are above expectations), so although there can be some minor issues to take care of, the big issue of "what do we do if revenues are slashed" pretty much takes care of itself. I don't follow the NBA nearly as closely, but I understand their salary cap is based on league revenue as well.

The winter sports were reaching the conclusion of their regular seasons, and the owners and players had received a substantial amount of the revenue and pay. Obviously missing the playoffs or having no fans would have impact.

MLB and the NFL face an uncertain revenue stream, depending whether fans are allowed to attend games to any degree. Most of us have suspicions that some MLB and most NFL teams make a good deal of money.

That's around 150 million per team.

Baseball is in trouble. Baseballs national TV contract with ESPN is
1 billion, about 32 million per team. Without fans in the stands, most teams will lose a ton of money.

which is the same as the NBA split. The NFL player share is 47%. The MLB players are pushing back against the revenue split for a variety of reasons. I don't follow MLB that closely, but I've been reading some opinion columns suggesting the players may choose to sit out 2020 if a deal isn't reached. The collective bargaining agreement expires after next season.

they leaked it out there and the players and Scott Boras got pissed off, as they see it as a way around what was already negotiated. The owners supposedly have an email chain from March which shows that the union agreed to negotiate more if the games went on without fans.

It's a tough and complicated situation.

When players enter into bad deals (either collectively as a CBA or individually in contract negotiations), the general mindset is "Hey, it's business. You agreed to a bad deal. It's on you." There obviously is some reality to that. But it never seems to go the other way.

Along with those splits that the NFL, NBA, and NHL have, the books are essentially open. That is not the case in the MLB, and owners still aren't willing to open the books. Also, there is a salary floor that all teams must adhere too. There is no salary floor in MLB either, and they don't want one. So the MLB owners are asking for all the benefits of a revenue-sharing agreement with the players, but aren't doing any of the other things that go along with it. They want the best of both worlds.

Listen, this is a unique situation. I'm not saying the players shouldn't be willing to negotiate and give some. But a huge part of this is on the owners. THEY agreed to a CBA that did not tie salaries to revenue. THEY have always refused to open the books. THEY signed a deal about the 2020 season that did not include per-game salary reductions in case of no or limited crowds.

But this is America. If you're rich enough, profits are always looked at as good, smart business and capitalism (while anything that costs them money is shouted down as socialism), but losses aren't their fault need to be fixed by socialism.

the players don't want a system where the pay is tied to revenue as they see it as a salary cap and they'd never agree to a salary cap. What is basically being said at this point is that the players agreed to a pro rated salary based on number of games played (true) and the owners are saying that, while they did agree to that, both sides agreed to continue to negotiate if fans couldn't attend the games (in dispute).

Nobody has made any formal proposals as of yet and the owners are again negotiating in bad faith by leaking things to the press before taking it to the players. I believe that the owners see an opportunity here with the weaker (than in the past) leadership in the mlbpa.

never would have happened in the Don Fehr era.

I agree with all that.

But I also think that if the owners want the cost certainty of the players getting a certain percentage of the revenue, they also need to do the other things that the other leagues are doing. Opening the books is a huge one.

Is this a true "employer/employee relationship" or is this a partnership? If it's an employer/employee relationship, the players have no right to the books...but risks like economic issues like this also fall on the owners (until they choose to pass it on to the players via future individual contract negotiations and the upcoming CBA negotiations). If it's a partnership, then that's a different issue.

But who in their right mind would agree to revenue sharing if the other side isn't showing you the true revenue?

this is decades of mistrust.