Alright I'll bite. Oversimplifying? Sure. But the players and the businesses both received less revenue than expected (and contractually guaranteed) while maintaining a certain level of fixed expenses. Where is the 'massive misunderstanding'? Happ is comparing players taking a reduced salary (there are no "fixed" expenses there) against a business where there are massive fixed expenses for stadiums, front office personnel, coaches, minor league operations, scouting, etc. All this said, I'm for the players getting a much bigger percentage of the sport's revenues. Screw the billionaire owners. But it doesn't help to have a union representative showing a basic lack of understanding of the difference in finances for individuals vs businesses. What the hell Tim? The biggest expense the owners have is player salaries and those were slashed. Front offices took hits and payrolls were reduced. There is no significant fixed cost in owning a stadium, none of them paid for theirs anyway. Owners enjoyed smaller profits. They didn't take a hit. I'm sure they can find a way to make it look like that for tax purposes, but Happ isn't showing a basic lack of understanding in finances here.