Can the NBA Players Association Force the Owners to Negotiate Better Revenue Sharing Amongst Teams?

I am a firm believer that the NBA's real economic problem is not out of control player salaries, but a lack of revenue sharing amongst its teams. It's a fact that the NBA might have the worst team revenue sharing plan in American professional sports. That lack of revenue sharing has caused small market NBA teams to suffer tremendously over the last few years. And now that the economy has gone down the toilet, the situation for these small market teams has only gotten worse. Yet, instead of petitioning to get more revenue sharing amongst the teams, these small market teams have hopped on the "players make too much money, that's why we suffer" bandwagon. Now it's going to be up to the NBA Players Association to get figure out a way to get the owners to come up with a better team revenue sharing system. 

If the owners don't want to address the issue themselves, the Players Association might be able to force them to address the matter during the next round of collecting bargaining via the "mandatory subject" provision. Basically, the National Labor Relations Board has mandated that union and management must meet a reasonable number of times and discuss and bargain in good faith over mandatory subjects. Mandatory subjects include: Wages, hours and terms of employment; subjects that impact wages, hours and terms of employment; any proposed term that significantly effects/impacts above. The argument for revenue sharing amongst owners being a mandatory subject of CBA negotiations between the players and the owners is that team revenue sharing significantly effects/impacts wages, hours and terms of employment. I believe the Major League Baseball Players Union utilized this provision to promote negotiations of a better revenue sharing amongst Major League Baseball teams. The NBA Players Association should be looking to utilize the same tactic.