We can look at The Packers' financial statements to get a sense for where the money goes. The Packers pulled in $441MM (million ) in revenue, while expenses rose to $371MM resulting in Net Income of $73MM. Of those expenses, about $156MM come from players.
So, if revenues decline, does anyone really think they'll take it out on the players? Most of them are under contract, so in the short-run they won't feel the pinch.
I'm not saying the boycott shouldn't continue. The essence of the boycott is "if you all support Kaepernick taking a knee because he hates the police, when we'll ignore you." Thus, the boycott has a noble underpinning.
More importantly, anything that results in strengthening of the family and fathers and mothers spending more time with children and less time on panem et circenses is a net positive for society.
But, net-net-net, if revenues decline, the cuts will come in the middle offices and trickled down to concessions employees, parking attendants, etc. The players that many people seem to abhor, will largely remain unimpacted (aside from some loss of endorsements etc.) ESPECIALLY IF THIS IS A TEMPORAL DIP IN VIEWERSHIP.
Actually the cuts will hit the players. The cap is pinned to a percentage of revenue, if revenue drops the cap drops and player salaries will have to adjust. Which could be really fun since the cap has never gone anywhere but up. Lots of intense renegotiation could happen early next year.