I don't think that's necessarily true.
The players cannot "lose" money in any given year because they're getting paid a salary. The owners can, and if it turns out that playing those games and paying those salaries will cause them to lose more money this season than they otherwise would...why should they?
Maybe the owners are trying to make extra profits off this, and maybe they aren't. But I don't think we fans are in a position to 100% know that either way.
They are under no obligation to, and I would understand if they chose not to play the year and lose more money than they have to.
I really don't care whether the owners are trying to turn a profit here. That's not my issue here.
I like the analogy I saw yesterday:
Let's say somebody owns eight apartment buildings and needs landscaping done at each of them. They contract somebody for $1 million to do the job.
Circumstances beyond anyone's control force the owner to close half their buildings, meaning they no longer need the landscaping services for those buildings.
The contractor agrees to accept $500k instead of $1 million to provide services at the remaining four properties because it's not the owner's fault.
The owner then proposes to pay the contractor $400k because they can no longer afford to pay the previously agreed upon rate.
The contractor has every right to walk away from that deal, and I don't see how you can criticize them for doing so.
I don't fault the owners for not wanting to operate at a loss, but the players shouldn't be forced to take less either. When business is booming, the players don't get to alter the conditions of their existing contracts to get more money out of it, nor should they.
This is the risk you assume as an owner. If you can't pay the agreed-upon wages, the employees are under no obligation to just accept the scraps you can throw at them. It's a dangerous precedent to set allowing owners to take advantage of their employees.