Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant, just that they have no right to be taking it as an 'insult' when they wound up on the long end of the exact same percentage in the last CBA. So I guess they were insulting the owners offering 57-43 at the end of the last CBA? The NBA's first offer was even worse than that lol.
I mean first offers are first offers, and no one cares about them today. But the NHL is making record revenues - I'd be a little insulted if I worked somewhere that was making record profits, in part because of my work, and they offered me and everyone else there 20% less money. But that's business, I don't think anyone cares about it now.
If it's so ludicrous on their end, they should realize that's how the end of the last CBA looked to the owners. But it's telling you think even 57-43 for the players isn't 'fair'.
No percentage is fair. When you cut percentages like the NHL has, what you end up doing is forcing small market teams to spend beyond their means while big market teams rake in money. And you put out of reach that money that the big market teams rake in - money they want to spend on players. And of course they don't want to just give it to other teams in revenue sharing - it's theirs! They earned it! (By enforcing a municipally-funded monopoly such that competitors can't enter their market w/o buying a franchise and paying exorbitant fees)
The owners signed every single one of those contracts that were so unfair. The players did not compel them to do so. I don't understand how you don't understand this - the percentage of revenue that players ultimately got in 2004 were the owners and GMs doing and theirs alone (beyond, of course, the CBA put in place which allowed the owners to do that).