Something that has always confused me: negotiations between the league and NFLPA center, primarily, around the % of NFL earnings players are entitled to -- this is where max cap, mandatory cap floor spending over the course of 4 league years, and other concepts were borne. In a league that is quite literally run by lawyers who debate contracts with other lawyers (agents), not a single person ever thought of the contraction of revenue and considered including a clause where current contracts may have to shrink by a relative ammount to accommodate the new mandatory cap range both parties agreed to?
We saw this in the NHL with the contraction of value of the C$, which forced less cap growth as Canadian teams could not compete in a US$ dominated market without the stipulation of contracting of the cap to make up for the value disparity.
The fact that the vast majority of the "players" in these negotiations are primarily focused on financial ramifications, yet somehow managed to completely ignore the current possibility (eventual likelihood, if you ask an economist [constant economic grow is never a reality]), is just fucking amazing to me.
The most reasonable reaction, in my opinion, would be a % based contract system where a player's real contract value in a given year is determined by an agreed upon % of cap space at the time of their contract signing, then is allowed to inflate or deflate as current economic circumstances dictate. That would also prevent the stupid "I signed as the top paid player at my position two years ago, but now Bob is getting paid more, so I'm going to hold out." It would remove the actual dollar amount from the equation and move it to "what percent of this team's value are you worth."