Bottom line:

The players have far more to lose by missing games. 

The framework of this CBA will probably be the basis for the next one and the one after that etc.  In other words, they are really negotiating what players will be paid for the next 20 years. 

In essence, every lockout/strike situation is a game of chicken. Missing games is clearly bad for both sides but it will happen unless one side accepts an inferior situation. But how useful is it to actually win and get the right CBA for the next 20 years. 

A typical owner will look at this and say "I could cave now and save a year's worth of revenues or I could holdout and get a CBA that will pay dividends for the next 19 years."

A typical player will look at this and say "I could cave now and save a year's salary or I could holdout and get a CBA that really won't benefit me personally all that much.  My career is likely to be only a few years long.  Losing a year would cost me a huge percentage of my lifetime earnings.  Sure, "the players" would be getting benefits for the next 20 years if we hold out, but me personally....not really. 

I'd also point out that sports owners are typically only part time.  They have other real businesses.   Losing the NFL revenue for a year is like losing a pinky.  Unpleasant and uncomfortable but ultimately not  a real problem.  For a typical player who has no income or wealth outside of being a football star and only a couple years to maximize that revenue,  losing a year would be a much more serious injury.  I really don't see how the players don't ultimately blink first.