KAPALUA, Hawaii - The split between the high-revenue NFL teams and the less profitable clubs isn't exactly a canyon. It might be wider than the chasm between the owners and the players association, though.

And because of the differences of opinion on revenue sharing and what exactly should go into the player pool - plus who should contribute how much to it - progress toward a renewal of the collective bargaining agreement has stagnated.

While plenty was accomplished at the league's annual meetings that concluded Wednesday, the collective bargaining agreement dilemma cast a shadow over other decisions. Commissioner Paul Tagliabue scheduled a special session for April 19 in Atlanta and, even though the current deal does not expire until 2008, there seems to be a sense of urgency to at least close in on a solution.

"We had a lot of good analysis," Tagliabue said. "There are two or three concepts considered. The April 19 meeting is scheduled to try to keep the progress going.

"I think there is a consensus there's a need for some new readiness within the league to address the issue of cost sharing and revenue sharing."

The league and the union have agreed to broaden the formula for determining the salary cap, switching from "designated gross revenue (DGR)" to "total football revenue." Tagliabue said instead of the current 88-90 percent of total team money going into the cap, that figure would increase to between 92 and 93 percent.

The crux of the disagreement among owners is that high-revenue teams such as Dallas, Washington, Houston, New England and Philadelphia contribute a lower percentage to the players' benefit package than the rest of the 32 teams.

Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney, whose market is among the least-profitable in football, indicated little progress was made on a formula for contributions to the player pool.

"Not really," Rooney said when asked if there had been much accomplished this week on the issue.

NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw said the major squabble right now is not between his union and the league.

"We'll find a way to get it done," he said. "It just that we have an opportunity now and we may have to pass on it because the owners can't seem to agree among themselves."

The owners did agree the 2010 Super Bowl will be played in New York if the Jets get approval for their stadium project on the West Side of Manhattan, which is no slam dunk.

NFL owners voted 31-1 to award the game to New York, provided the 75,000-seat stadium with a retractable roof, whose cost now has reached nearly $2 billion, is built.

"When the NFL says it wants to bring its signature event to New York, that helps build momentum," said Jets president Jay Cross, who has worked for four years on the stadium deal. "It's important to build a broad base of support and a consensus."