years at which time the players could gain back 2% of HRR.  This way the league reaches 50-50 much quicker, but if revenues grow drasticallly, the players would get some of those rapid savings back in a 48-52 split over the last couple of seasons. Any increase in revenues would cover the 7% decrease in revenue split and the players would not have had to forfeit current money up front. They would have assumed some risk that the league revenues do not outgrow the 7% rollback over time.  The league could then take that 7% of revenue that the players would be giving back and directing it into a revenue sharing fund so that the CBA isn't a process by which the rich teams have out of market low fixed costs, but unlimited profit margins at the expense of weaker teams.  The next CBA would be much closer to a 50/50 split with a well defined HRR in place and leaguewide revenue growth would contribute to a revenue sharing fund. Would the players have accepted 7% loss in HRR over 5 years? Maybe not, but then the onous would have been on the players. If the NHL continued to grow they would have been getting roughly the same amount of money, just less of the growth, growth would help the unstable markets and if the league growth stalled the players share would shrink. Big markets get see a little less of the growth, but maintain the cost savings the hard