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. But doesn't Happ/the players have fixed expenses too? Obviously a different scale, but you establish a lifestyle based on projected or contractually guaranteed income amounts. Player X only got 37% of the income he was projected to receive in 2020, but his costs stayed relatively the same...mortgages, etc.