When I wrote that a player's salary is relative to the revenue he generates, I meant it as part of the bigger picture. Imagine, as an example, that the Browns generate $200M in a given year. Kellen Winslow is a significant part of that revenue stream. He's not the ONLY part, but he is a part none the less.
The Browns are going to generate $200M whether they pay Winslow or not. What I'm saying, is that if Winslow doesn't go for his share of that pot, then it's just more money in the owners' pockets.
It would be nice if everyone involved could agree to live in 6,000 sqaure foot houses instead of 10,000 sqaure foot houses so that ticket prices would go down a few bucks, but that's not going to happen. The fact is, even with ticket prices higher than ever,
NFL attendance is also higher than ever. With that being the case, I would contend that it's OK if a big chunk of that pie goes to the player.