Here is one proposition on the NFL labor situation.

The league has had success because various owners, commissioners, players and court rulings have kept the league’s 32 teams largely balanced in terms of competition. In fact, the NFL enjoyed the highest ratings in TV history for the past two Super Bowls in spite of having small-market teams in the game.

That, one would think, is a good thing.

But in the NFL there always have been owners of large-market teams who feel they deserve a greater slice of the revenue pie because they have a team in New York, Boston or Dallas versus Indianapolis, Pittsburgh or Minnesota.

In fact, Dallas owner Jerry Jones has stated on the record many times he doesn’t think the NFL needs revenue sharing.

The NFL of today is not the NFL of the Pete Rozelle era. In Rozelle’s day, the commissioner ran the league. The Maras and the Rooneys worked together as a league, for the benefit of all, rather than individual fiefdoms, like in baseball.

Today, the owners of the big market teams seek to exert their power. Jones says the richer clubs deserve to keep their revenue.

But there remain the factors that make the NFL fair on the field and, thus, appealing to a wider base of fans than many other pro sports.

Among the things that makes the NFL successful are the salary cap, salary floor and revenue sharing, allowed under law because of the league’s antitrust status. With talks failing and failing again to the point that the union decertifies, the players and owners head to court, with the league’s antitrust status at the center of the matter.

Could it be that some owners — the big-market owners — sort of, maybe, kind of want the balance of power and revenue in the league tipped more in their favor as a result of a change in antitrust status? Could it be player v. owner lawsuits are what some owners want?

After all, the best players would want the league to be more competitive among teams for wages. That’s what they want in the lawsuits. Like how the New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies and other big-market teams in Major League Baseball can buy away players from small-market teams, a good player like Peyton Manning would be free to explore which team can pay the most for him. If Indy cannot afford him, maybe Dallas can.

That sounds great to players, but it isn’t necessarily the best for fans, who are more likely to watch games not involving their own team if the league is fair about access to talent. In baseball nowadays, people generally don’t watch unless it’s their team.

The courts, historically, have done a lot better when it comes to rulings on the NFL than with rulings on NCAA football. Let’s hope the courts can continue to find the right balance between players, big-market owners and small-market owners that keeps the National Football League fair on the field and off the field for all involved.