The owners are the ones fronting the money and assuming the risk. They get SOME benefit from the relationship. Otherwise, why invest and own a team?
Because you own a bunch of buildings downtown and they’re struggling?
Because you need a giant tax write off?
Because you’re a competitive person and don’t care about the finances, just want to beat your peers?
How much risk is being assumed when you artificially restrict the salaries of employees while selling the rights to the ordeal without restriction?
The owners will be fine if you don’t give them everything they want. If they want to retain top talent, things besides an easy button from the cba are my preferred things to do. It’s better, for example, if the team is forced to improve the quality of life of the players on the team. God forbid this is the path chosen and not a new clause in the cba that basically screws one guy harder than the rest because he’s good and the owner can’t figure it out without help.
I’d be in favor of a franchise tag that lessened the cap hit of a marquee player, but not one that forced retention.