Contary to our belief that the new round of Collective Bargaining Agreement discussions between the NFL and its union would require a new deal among owners regarding the sharing of unshared revenue that currently is included in the whole 59-cents-on-the-dollar formula from which the players are paid, we’re told that, for now, the issue of revenue sharing won’t be an issue.

It was a huge issue in 2006, given that the players’ share was jumping from a big piece of the primarily shared revenues to a smaller piece of a bigger pie including all of the football revenues. 

At the time, the league instituted a system of supplemental revenue sharing, aimed at requiring certain high-earning teams to carve off some cash to be given to low-earning teams based on need.  Apparently, that system has worked, so far.

But this doesn’t mean it won’t become an issue as additional NFL seasons unfold.  If the disparity between the haves and the have-mores continues to expand every year, the teams who are earning the least (and thus paying the most, relatively speaking, to their players under a league-wide salary cap number pumped up by the big money earned by others) could begin to clamor for change.

As we understand it, those teams are currently being placated in part by logic based on the reality that much of the shared money from television contracts and sponsorships deals are a direct result of the presence of franchises in large markets. 

Regardless of the specific reason for it, the fact that the owners apparently won’t be fighting among themselves is a good sign, since it’s one less issue that everyone will need to address as the CBA discussions unfold.

As to the real issues in the looming negotiations, we’ve summarized them all as part of our twice-per-week gig with SportingNews.com.