Except they essentially are paid by their schedule, which unlike in the UFC is a known commodity ahead of the season. They have to bargain on the basis of playing that many games and what their worth is for that. Star factor is a huge factor obviously, but both sides are negotiating on the basis of playing that whole season.
Yes, obviously they could tear their ACL in their first game and still get paid the same salary. But the owner wouldn't be offering the same salary if he knew that ahead of time. He's offering it on the expected basis of playing all season, not 1/17 games. But as I said it's a reciprocal agreement. The player agrees to contribute all season, and the owner agrees to pay all season.
UFC fighters meanwhile agree per fight for a certain amount of fights, and only get paid the moment the ref says go. They'd be better served agreeing to a more similar agreement of promising a certain amount of fights in a certain amount of time. You have a lot more leverage there than if you just agree you'll fight whenever you feel like it.
It's not a copout. $6.5B to 53 players is a lot more evenly distributed than $9B to 400 fighters. That's math.
Again, the UFC absolutely COULD payout more. But the numbers will never end up comparable to these individual teams like people try and do. The numbers aren't remotely the same because a much small group brings in nearly as much revenue as an entire league. You'd have to go back to early UFC days where the roster was much smaller, while somehow still having the same revenue, to make it comparable to value vs number of athletes.
It can be made better without trying to compare apples to oranges.