Players view themselves as equals when they sign this agreement, and [url=https://www.mmoexp.com/Nfl-23/Ltds.html]MUT 23 ltds cards[/url] moving to 17 games can increase the chance of injury and the possibility of a shorter career. They would like more than the owners are offering48.5 percent of the revenue split 48.5 per cent of revenue -the amount needed to bring it about. I do believe an increase to 49 percent would be enough to get them to commit to 17 games and 50 percent would certainly be enough to make an agreement.

One question mark to be asked is what else comes along with those 17 game proposals? Are the increase in retirement benefits as well as minimum salaries tied to the 17-game proposal? Would they be eliminated if players don't agree to 17 games? If yes, would more money for players younger than them and more benefits to retired players justify not receiving up to 49 or 50 percent of the revenue split?

A few players would say it's. Taking care of the entire collective is the main goal of the union. And If sacrificing one percent or two gets the core players more money in their pockets, they'd be for it.

It's also worth noting most players would like their week 17 pay to match all of the other seasons. The amount of pay is set to be $250.000 for each additional game. Then again, Peter King reported in his Football Morning in America column that players may have more requests from their teams during Week 17. With all the requests for additional cash, this one seems like it might be the easiest to get.

The second issue is one that I've talked about in depth about health benefits once the players' careers have concluded. As of right now, we can avail five years' health insurance coverage after our retirement. Fans want more due to the fact that a 17th and [url=https://www.mmoexp.com/Nfl-23/Ltds.html]Madden 23 ltds[/url] more playoff games can be a than a risk for your body.