So if owners are making far less or even losing money on the season, why would the players deserve a 1-1 ratio on pay? Wouldn't they be expected to take a cut? Everyone else on the planet it. So if they were making $100 for playing 100 games, why should they make $50 for playing 50 games when everyone else is taking a hit? $45 for 50 games is less, yeah, but doesn't suck.
Because that's the difference between equity and labor. If, in a given year, baseball has a spectacularly successful season profits wise, you won't see the owners suddenly cutting bonus checks to the players. Why should the players subsidize the owners in down years?
Also, people in other lines of work are losing money because they aren't working, just like the players. I'm sure some workers who have gone back to work have taken paycuts, but it's not anywhere near so widespread as you make it sound.
In any event, baseball's owners lack the legal or moral high ground here. If they have to take losses for one year, that's capitalism.