The more I've thought about this, the more I think we're headed towards a soft cap of some sort.
The players will not allow for a hard cap. From the players perspective, all a hard cap will do is take away spending power from the teams willing to spend. The owners have proven through their actions that this will not be made up by the teams that have previously been unwilling to spend, and no amount of revenue sharing will change that. Ultimately it's just straight up salary suppression without a mechanism to make them spend And if the owners are actually stupid enough to try to impose one unilaterally, then they'll get destroyed in court, just like they did in 1995. That precedent has been set. That is not an option.
The only thing that will force them to actually reinvest in salaries would be a hard floor as outlined above by t&r. And that's where I doubt the owners will be able to get on board. The leaches at the bottom of the revenue ladder aren't going to want to give up their guaranteed profits and actually have to try to compete, while those at the top probably won't be willing to share as much as would be required to make it work. If they can't come to an internal agreement, they certainly won't be able to come to an agreement with the players. They won't learn the lesson from other sports that a robust national product lifts all boats. That even though small markets like Kansas City and San Antonio were able to build dynasties, that didn't prevent the Giants and Lakers from hitting $10 billion-with-a-B franchise valuations. The owners also should expect to give up some major concessions regarding minimum salaries and service time and other things if they want to win something as paradigm-shifting as a hard cap, and ultimately it just seems like too much for them to get a consensus on what to give up in order to get it.
So what will keep this from being a long, drawn-out stoppage? The impending expiration of all media deals after 2028. These deals will be getting brought to market in 2027, and doing so during a work stoppage would be catastrophic for everyone. Just ask the NHL. As a result, they will find a soft cap (and a lower floor) to be a livable compromise. Both sides will have gained something in that the owners will have trojan-horsed a cap structure of some kind as a basis for future negotiations while the players can claim they once again avoided a hard cap, on top of whatever other concessions they get (if the owners get a cap of any kind, then every other bargaining point will surely be moving in the players' favor).
This is not to say that I want a soft cap, or that I think it's the best solution. There's no reason an NFL-style hard floor/cap can't work in a vacuum. The tricky part is how to implement it with guaranteed contracts and structures already in place. If they got creative they could find a way to phase it in over several years - say starting with a harsh luxury tax that transitions to a soft cap and eventually the hard cap. Maybe there's some sort of two-tiered system for the few teams that actually have their own successful RSN. Maybe that's the trade-off for licensing their RSNs for use in Manfred's dream of an all-encompassing broadcasting platform.
If I'm the players, I make it be known that they will listen on a hard cap IF AND ONLY IF the owners open their books and allow the help of a third party to determine the revenue figures caps and floors will be pegged to. Call the owners' bluff. Are they willing to do their least favorite thing in order to get their favorite thing?