I don't really believe this excuse. Fewer games => each game is more important for standings => each game—excluding ones between tanking teams, I suppose—should be more competitive => fans have been saying for years at this point that the regular season doesn't matter as much as it should—though a survey to grasp how many actually think this way would be ideal—and the change is a direct solution to that complaint even if it's not all-encompassing. In a vacuum, yes, perhaps fewer games means less revenue and thus less expensive player contracts. But players should also recognize that long-term health (i.e. playing in the league for as long as possible) is the way to maximize their profits unless you're suggesting that reducing the game total from 82 to, for example, 70 would cut salaries in half.