I was talking about break even at the entire league level in terms of making spending exactly as much as they make, not in terms of an equal split between the owners and players. I'm not saying it isn't high. I haven't said they are overpaid either, although I think it's pretty obvious that some are and some are not and in general they are paid too much. The "rare skill" doesn't apply to all the players. The difference between Jesse Holley making a team was a stupid reality show. He earned the right to retain his spot by being guy who just did his job but lets not think for a moment that his skillset was so unique that he would have made it without that show. A lot of guys are simply athletes, which isn't all that rare. Even more are just big guys which is far from a skillset but admittedly a desirable attribute. Which in one way is an example of the "rarity" you keep talking about in that the guys who are absolutely the best are rare while the guys filling the last couple roster spots are often times guys who haven't really done much more than thousands of other college players except maybe show off a little bit more speed in a spandex suit. Very little separates a guy at the bottom of the roster and a guy who's sitting at home watching the games and waiting for a phone call from a team who just lost a player. Ernie Simms is one such guy and his rare talent was on the couch until Dallas lost guys. Many times, the difference between in or out is just having someone give you a chance. I understand it's a price ceiling. I'm asking why was it put in there. Don't fool yourself and think the owners really care about getting older players a little more cash. That was the tradeoff they accepted in order to protect themselves from having to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to a group of players who haven't even set foot on the field, many of whom will fail out. That was the tradeoff for not having to make these guys overpaid from the moment they signed a contract, even though the reality is many of them are anyways. As far as veterans go, if we look at supply and demand there are far more veterans available than there are rookies so from that perspective, spreading more money to the pool of players that is far larger and could be viewed as more susceptible to market powers (thank rookies, their pay is what it is) just doesn't make sense. You have a larger supply of veterans, less demand for those who have significant time accrued and aren't really standout players because they cost so much more than a rookie free agent or mid-late round pick based purely on base salary. Sure. And plenty of properties that aren't. Price ceilings and price floors. Salary cap, franchise tags, contract structure and in some cases an inability to let your demand for a specific player drop by cutting him when he sucks because you're going to be held accountable for it. You liquidate your assets according to supply and demand, you've lost or gained the difference in acquisition price and sale price.....generally speaking. If you've gained, you can now acquire more of a product that you now demand than you would have been able to without dumping your supply of whatever it was that you no longer demanded. In the NFL if you "liquidate" (not in a true sense but practical one in that you rid yourself of him just as you would rid yourself of a product) a guy like Doug Free you've not only lost the real money spent on him, you've lost the amount of available imaginary money that you have to work with which ultimately limits your ability to spend real money.