The Lockout has arrived.
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, you can definitely make an argument that they had a poor strategy, but I'd like to see how this turns out before I decree that to be the case. "Right" and "wrong" are probably dubious judgments in negotiations like these, but all I'm saying is that I can't blame the players for it coming to this. IMO, they negotiated in good faith and the NBA did nothing but try to take everything they could the entire time in the douchiest manner possible. Ultimatums and threats are no way to negotiate, and the players finally reacted accordingly. You can accuse them of acting too late, but if they did, then they're only guilty of expecting the NBA to actually negotiate in good faith when they shouldn't have expected that. If that's the case, then I don't see how that paints the players as the villains here.
I get why people are blaming the players for there being no basketball since they were the ones that were put on the defensive, so it seems like all that's between basketball and no basketball is them acquiescing. It takes two to tango though and the owners haven't budged on anything meaningful in the years they've been negotiating this. Maybe this doesn't pan out for the players and all they did was waste a season of playing ball and a year's salary, but the indignation I sense from people is not that "the players screwed themselves, they're so stupid," but rather "the players screwed us, they're so stupid and greedy." If we're talking about whose responsibility it is to bring basketball back (assuming it's anyone's responsibility at all) it should be shared evenly between the players and owners.
I'm not really firmly dug in on any side per se, I'm far more annoyed by the owners than I am the players, so I do take some joy in the players not backing down, but ultimately I just want basketball back, and I want the system stuff to be what's best for the entertainment value of basketball while still being fair. I can easily give in to my instant gratification desire (and I have at times) and say that the players should just cave so we can have some semblance of a season, but that's seeing things from a selfish fan perspective, not from the players' perspective.
I get why people are blaming the players for there being no basketball since they were the ones that were put on the defensive, so it seems like all that's between basketball and no basketball is them acquiescing. It takes two to tango though and the owners haven't budged on anything meaningful in the years they've been negotiating this. Maybe this doesn't pan out for the players and all they did was waste a season of playing ball and a year's salary, but the indignation I sense from people is not that "the players screwed themselves, they're so stupid," but rather "the players screwed us, they're so stupid and greedy." If we're talking about whose responsibility it is to bring basketball back (assuming it's anyone's responsibility at all) it should be shared evenly between the players and owners.
I'm not really firmly dug in on any side per se, I'm far more annoyed by the owners than I am the players, so I do take some joy in the players not backing down, but ultimately I just want basketball back, and I want the system stuff to be what's best for the entertainment value of basketball while still being fair. I can easily give in to my instant gratification desire (and I have at times) and say that the players should just cave so we can have some semblance of a season, but that's seeing things from a selfish fan perspective, not from the players' perspective.
Last edited:
But clearly that's not the whole story regarding these mega stars and many NBA players total compensation - by a long shot. Lebron James takes to the bank at least $28,000,000 million annually in addition to his NBA salary, Bryant has commercial endorsements of over $10,000,000 annually, Duncan at least $3,500,000 annually, and so on. Other players have huge incomes from investments in real estate, movie or music making, appearance fees, etc. Why none of this is ever brought up or rarely seems UNFAIR (to borrow a players union fave word) but nearly every NBA player has lucrative outside income, sometimes very substaintial and far exceeding a "paltry" annual NBA pay check. This is one source (list) of such outside income: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/2009/
Meanwhile people somehow seem to expect the owners to keep their offer at 50% or more without issuing "ultimatums", as if at some point losses start piling up and it's just financially impossible/ stupid to accept anything more than 53% of BRI for the owners. The players seem to think that they are employers, business owners, and regular employees being affected by the world economy and rising costs of living all at the same time. Give me a break, 90% of the world would be willing to do what they do for half of what they're getting. Fairness my a**. Yes, the owners haven't been all too compromising either, but that's why they are owners, employers. They need to do what is smart for their business.
if the entire player body voted and this was the result then fine, I'd just think a lot of them were stupid and not aware of reality. The fact that the union execs. proceeded without a vote is just infuriating.
if the entire player body voted and this was the result then fine, I'd just think a lot of them were stupid and not aware of reality. The fact that the union execs. proceeded without a vote is just infuriating.
But they need to "feed their family," in the immortal words of Latrell Sprewell. I sense NBA fans and more so general public is totally fed up with these high priced, spoiled, professional athletes, full of insatiable greed, ego, arrogance, ignorance - stupidly guided around by the nose by a posse of idiotic union attorneys and mega greedy agents. It will now take a helluva lot to ever, if ever, get back that feeling... "THE NBA IS FAN-TASTIC!"
Seriously, I just wish the players would stop saying 3 things.
1) "We just want a fair deal" - what defines fair? Getting paid millions of dollars whilst people actually lose their livelihoods because you don't want to play about the only thing you're good at in life?
2) "Sorry fans. We want to basketball as much as you do. Let us play!" or something along those lines. Puhleez, if you wanted to play you could. The ball is literally in your court to accept the deal. Call a vote maybe?
3) "It's not just about us, but for the generations of players after us". Yeah sure, like you expect us to buy that bs. OMG 10 years from now a poor kid drafted out of college who comes from a poor family and was raised by his to-be respected single mom is going to be so hurt because now he's going to get $1 million less per year when he enters the league. I can just imagine him saying "Aww man. I'm only going to earn $2 million this year instead of $3 million, after growing up in such hardships. How am I going to face my family and provide for my mom??!?!? This is all Derek Fisher's fault!!!"
1) "We just want a fair deal" - what defines fair? Getting paid millions of dollars whilst people actually lose their livelihoods because you don't want to play about the only thing you're good at in life?
2) "Sorry fans. We want to basketball as much as you do. Let us play!" or something along those lines. Puhleez, if you wanted to play you could. The ball is literally in your court to accept the deal. Call a vote maybe?
3) "It's not just about us, but for the generations of players after us". Yeah sure, like you expect us to buy that bs. OMG 10 years from now a poor kid drafted out of college who comes from a poor family and was raised by his to-be respected single mom is going to be so hurt because now he's going to get $1 million less per year when he enters the league. I can just imagine him saying "Aww man. I'm only going to earn $2 million this year instead of $3 million, after growing up in such hardships. How am I going to face my family and provide for my mom??!?!? This is all Derek Fisher's fault!!!"
I agree, but it doesn't mean at average NBA salary around $6 million - highest in all pro sports that they can't feed a family. It doesn't mean they can't strive to one day have lucrative commercial endorsements. It doesn't mean they can't be set for life with smart investing and upon retirement along with their NBA pension continue to live in the kind of worry free luxury most average folks will never see.
I can't believe that people think this situation is comparable to other labor disputes. The players are not merely employees or laborers, they don't make the product that the NBA designed or owns the rights to, they are the product. The NBA doesn't really sell basketball games, they sell the players, that's what makes them a **** ton of money. You replace these players with a bunch of scrubs, and the NBA will collapse. That makes it a completely different dynamic, and to want to compare this to a typical employer vs. employee dispute shows how incredibly partisan you are on the issue.
Last edited:
I am just going to say what has been said so there is no need to read this note. It is incomprehensible to me that players think there is any rational sense to losing income. The problem is that the most respected and probably most vocal players are the ones who don't need the money and are merely doing the typical male thing in that bigger is better. This isn't about feeding families or anything of the nature of course.
The average players seems to have little if any voice yet these are the guys who are affected in a very real way. These guys need enough money to last them a lifetime. They will never have an opportunity to make the kind of money that they are making now. They are chopping maybe 25% off their real earning years - I am talking about the guys who have 4 year careers which is more than we commonly think about. The little guy is not being represented and unlike Sprewell's lapse into hyperbole, the majority of the players, the semingly unrepresented, really ARE putting food on their family's tables.
Maybe there needs to be revenue sharing among the players when situations like this arise. Otherwise some people are really getting hurt. In the old days and maybe now, when there was a union work stoppage, there was a pile of cash set aside for such days and everyone received at least some money. These guys get none.
I love basketball. I do not need it to survive. I feel like I am being screwed and as much as I want to watch Cuz mature and Jimmer adjust and Reke do his thing, I have other interests and when I am feeling like I am being hurt by selfish people, I will go elsewhere. Not forever because I DO have an attachment to some of these guys and a personal interest in what they do but they are toying with my personal interest. They can lose me.
The part that baffles the crap out of me is that many of these guys came up with no money and now seem to have forgotten what it feels like to have no money. They quickly have reached that disconnect between the average person and themselves. The average fan is going through a very tough time financially. People are losing homes. People are unemployed.
With the overlapping of seasons of all sports, I have plenty to watch and enjoy right now and they aren't missed as much by me as they might think. Maybe my interests can drift away more readily than the average fan but they can lose me.
I don't miss them yet. I have other things to do than read breathlessly about the negotiations and opinions as to what is "fair" simply blow me away. To me, anything they get is "fair." Get real.
The average players seems to have little if any voice yet these are the guys who are affected in a very real way. These guys need enough money to last them a lifetime. They will never have an opportunity to make the kind of money that they are making now. They are chopping maybe 25% off their real earning years - I am talking about the guys who have 4 year careers which is more than we commonly think about. The little guy is not being represented and unlike Sprewell's lapse into hyperbole, the majority of the players, the semingly unrepresented, really ARE putting food on their family's tables.
Maybe there needs to be revenue sharing among the players when situations like this arise. Otherwise some people are really getting hurt. In the old days and maybe now, when there was a union work stoppage, there was a pile of cash set aside for such days and everyone received at least some money. These guys get none.
I love basketball. I do not need it to survive. I feel like I am being screwed and as much as I want to watch Cuz mature and Jimmer adjust and Reke do his thing, I have other interests and when I am feeling like I am being hurt by selfish people, I will go elsewhere. Not forever because I DO have an attachment to some of these guys and a personal interest in what they do but they are toying with my personal interest. They can lose me.
The part that baffles the crap out of me is that many of these guys came up with no money and now seem to have forgotten what it feels like to have no money. They quickly have reached that disconnect between the average person and themselves. The average fan is going through a very tough time financially. People are losing homes. People are unemployed.
With the overlapping of seasons of all sports, I have plenty to watch and enjoy right now and they aren't missed as much by me as they might think. Maybe my interests can drift away more readily than the average fan but they can lose me.
I don't miss them yet. I have other things to do than read breathlessly about the negotiations and opinions as to what is "fair" simply blow me away. To me, anything they get is "fair." Get real.
I disagree. 25% of the players are the product. The other 75% are just labor. In general, the top 3 players on a given team are the ones who are marketed. Its Tyreke, Cousins, and Jimmer vs. Kobe, Pau, and Odom. Of course those 25% are worth their weight in gold. However, as a union the NBAPA has a responsibility to look out for the 75%. Those are the guys who get hurt by not playing. LeBron is going to be a multimillionaire even if he never gets a cent from the league. But I doubt Jason Thompson is going to make millions by putting his name on some shoes. What is not clear to me is what exactly the NBAPA want out of a deal. This has always seemed to me to be more about egos than actually having a fair deal where both sides can prosper. The owners took legitimate losses over the last few seasons because the last deal was so tilted towards the players. Any deal is going to seem to be more tilted towards the owners because it needs to be.
I also disagree about the NBA replacing players with scrubs destroying the league. The NCAA does just fine using "scrubs" by NBA standards as do the international leagues. The NBA would still survive without the superstar players, but it would be much less lucrative. Plus its not like anyone else can pay the superstar players what they are currently making. They make more as individuals than most international teams pay for 12 guys.
I also disagree about the NBA replacing players with scrubs destroying the league. The NCAA does just fine using "scrubs" by NBA standards as do the international leagues. The NBA would still survive without the superstar players, but it would be much less lucrative. Plus its not like anyone else can pay the superstar players what they are currently making. They make more as individuals than most international teams pay for 12 guys.
There's no way this is typical labor dispute or typical employee/ownership structure. These millionaires vs. billionaires have been just trading stupid tracks leading to this debacle. First the owners over-paid and then as economy tanked in to the Great Recession, cried for some relief. Then the NBA players cried foul when asked to make necessary adjustment to their working status and stupidly sold their soul to a clique of egotistical business agents and NBPA lawyers.
Once it's over, all NBA players will be much lighter in the wallet, some older veterans simply cashiered from ever playing in NBA and the whole stinking mess will seem like a futile exercise in mega stupidity. The NBA will continue to provide incredible luxury treatment for its players like, first-class airtravel, first class hotel accomodations, endless massages, spa treatments, game day pedicures, manicures, gourmet food, personal trainers, and much more. The only question in the end will be who was MORE stupid in this fiasco, the greedy rich owners or the greedy rich players. I'm pretty sure you know what my answer is.
Once it's over, all NBA players will be much lighter in the wallet, some older veterans simply cashiered from ever playing in NBA and the whole stinking mess will seem like a futile exercise in mega stupidity. The NBA will continue to provide incredible luxury treatment for its players like, first-class airtravel, first class hotel accomodations, endless massages, spa treatments, game day pedicures, manicures, gourmet food, personal trainers, and much more. The only question in the end will be who was MORE stupid in this fiasco, the greedy rich owners or the greedy rich players. I'm pretty sure you know what my answer is.
So wait, you're not "really firmly dug in on any side per se", but people who disagree with you are "incredibly partisan"?
If the owners were profiting hand-over-fist I would support the players in their attempts to secure more money for their services. But the NBA, like any business, is only going to operate as long as the owners make a profit. I believe the NBA when they claim to be losing money. When the players argument is "we're making less money than before" and the owners' argument is "we're losing money", I have no trouble finding a side to support. The players are paid too much, and I'm not saying that from an absolute dollar point of view, but from the point of view of profitability of the business. And I want the owners to profit, because if they don't, they'll shut down the league, and nobody wants that. From my outsider's take on the numbers, I think that 50-50 would be within the margin of profitability for the owners, but probably only just on the cusp of it.
As far as the systems issues, my point of view (competitive balance trumps players' ability to play wherever they want) happens to coincide with the owners, too. I'm not wedded to a hard cap, but I want some sort of system that will allow small market teams to compete rather than allow superstars to get together and decide they all want to play in South Beach.
It seems like a lot of people around here agree with the basic stance that I take. Does that make me, and all of them, "incredibly partisan"? I didn't pick the owners out of some rah-rah loyalty to them, or because they're my "team" in the fight. I simply think they've got the right position on system issues and the much larger grievance on BRI issues. Show me an NBA where the players are getting 25% of BRI and don't have free agency and I'm siding with the players.
If the owners were profiting hand-over-fist I would support the players in their attempts to secure more money for their services. But the NBA, like any business, is only going to operate as long as the owners make a profit. I believe the NBA when they claim to be losing money. When the players argument is "we're making less money than before" and the owners' argument is "we're losing money", I have no trouble finding a side to support. The players are paid too much, and I'm not saying that from an absolute dollar point of view, but from the point of view of profitability of the business. And I want the owners to profit, because if they don't, they'll shut down the league, and nobody wants that. From my outsider's take on the numbers, I think that 50-50 would be within the margin of profitability for the owners, but probably only just on the cusp of it.
As far as the systems issues, my point of view (competitive balance trumps players' ability to play wherever they want) happens to coincide with the owners, too. I'm not wedded to a hard cap, but I want some sort of system that will allow small market teams to compete rather than allow superstars to get together and decide they all want to play in South Beach.
It seems like a lot of people around here agree with the basic stance that I take. Does that make me, and all of them, "incredibly partisan"? I didn't pick the owners out of some rah-rah loyalty to them, or because they're my "team" in the fight. I simply think they've got the right position on system issues and the much larger grievance on BRI issues. Show me an NBA where the players are getting 25% of BRI and don't have free agency and I'm siding with the players.
Well said. We're not talking about your local Teamsters union or the UAW, nothing against either of those unions or the workers they're comprised of. The reason NBA players (and pro athletes in general) make the money they do is because they have contributed to a league that generates revenue at a rate that allows them to be paid that much. As has been said, they don't make the product, they don't grow the product, they don't provide a service. They are the product.
David Stern was on the radio last week, and when asked about the idea that the players are the product, he pointed out how the players need the infrastructure that the owners provide: TV deals, arenas, sponsorships, etc., all the things that the league is comprised of. All true. But sports fans go to whatever stadium their team plays in, they pay whatever the gate fee is, and they pay for cable and Internet subscriptions to watch their favorite players play. Perhaps there are iconic venues that fans will go to just for the venue, like Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden, Cowboys Stadium. I went to Telstra in Sydney right after it opened, and it's amazing. Definitely an experience worth having, regardless of the event you're there for (I wasn't even there for a sporting event). But overall, fans want to see their favorite teams and players. Without the players, there is no league. The NFL found this out in the '80s when they used replacement players. It's just not a viable option.
I'm saying all this just to point out that it's unreasonable to expect any professional athlete who is a part of a league that generates multiple billions annually to just say "I make enough to take care of my family, so you can have the rest." They care about BRI splits, not because they're worried about whether they can put food on the table, but because they generate that BRI with their talents.
I don't think they're necessarily entitled to any particular amount of BRI; I've said several times that I could care less what the BRI split is, because the average player will still make more annually than the average person will make in 25 years. You could cut them down to 30% of BRI, and the average player would still make $3 or $4 million a year. I won't waste my tears on them, that's for sure.
Another thing is that I think the compensation structure needs to be changed radically in order to help the league survive long-term, and the players have been staunchly resistant to those changes. But this has nothing to do with BRI split. Whether they're at 40% or 70%, there still needs to be limits to contract length, there needs to be a more oppressive salary cap and luxury tax, and contracts should be more performance-driven rather than fully guaranteed. That's not an issue of fair or unfair; that's about the health and viability of the league.
Still, the idea that the players should just cower to any demands by the owners because they should feel lucky to earn millions playing a game is off-base. The game generates billions because of these players. They deserve a share of the rewards, and they deserve a share of the growth. That's not greed. Maybe that idea doesn't resonate with the common worker that makes up the NBA fan base, the guy who struggles to drop a couple hundred dollars for League Pass and a couple hundred more for a six-game ticket package. The same guy whose hours got cut last year because his union agreed to take less money through collective bargaining. I get that. Doesn't make it greedy, and it certainly doesn't make it irrelevant.
David Stern was on the radio last week, and when asked about the idea that the players are the product, he pointed out how the players need the infrastructure that the owners provide: TV deals, arenas, sponsorships, etc., all the things that the league is comprised of. All true. But sports fans go to whatever stadium their team plays in, they pay whatever the gate fee is, and they pay for cable and Internet subscriptions to watch their favorite players play. Perhaps there are iconic venues that fans will go to just for the venue, like Yankee Stadium, Madison Square Garden, Cowboys Stadium. I went to Telstra in Sydney right after it opened, and it's amazing. Definitely an experience worth having, regardless of the event you're there for (I wasn't even there for a sporting event). But overall, fans want to see their favorite teams and players. Without the players, there is no league. The NFL found this out in the '80s when they used replacement players. It's just not a viable option.
I'm saying all this just to point out that it's unreasonable to expect any professional athlete who is a part of a league that generates multiple billions annually to just say "I make enough to take care of my family, so you can have the rest." They care about BRI splits, not because they're worried about whether they can put food on the table, but because they generate that BRI with their talents.
I don't think they're necessarily entitled to any particular amount of BRI; I've said several times that I could care less what the BRI split is, because the average player will still make more annually than the average person will make in 25 years. You could cut them down to 30% of BRI, and the average player would still make $3 or $4 million a year. I won't waste my tears on them, that's for sure.
Another thing is that I think the compensation structure needs to be changed radically in order to help the league survive long-term, and the players have been staunchly resistant to those changes. But this has nothing to do with BRI split. Whether they're at 40% or 70%, there still needs to be limits to contract length, there needs to be a more oppressive salary cap and luxury tax, and contracts should be more performance-driven rather than fully guaranteed. That's not an issue of fair or unfair; that's about the health and viability of the league.
Still, the idea that the players should just cower to any demands by the owners because they should feel lucky to earn millions playing a game is off-base. The game generates billions because of these players. They deserve a share of the rewards, and they deserve a share of the growth. That's not greed. Maybe that idea doesn't resonate with the common worker that makes up the NBA fan base, the guy who struggles to drop a couple hundred dollars for League Pass and a couple hundred more for a six-game ticket package. The same guy whose hours got cut last year because his union agreed to take less money through collective bargaining. I get that. Doesn't make it greedy, and it certainly doesn't make it irrelevant.
This is devolving into a peripheral argument. It's true that the top 25% are the guys who really matter. Still, this isn't your typical union. Auto manufacturers can blow up the UAW and still make their product with replacement workers. The NBA can't blow up the NBPA and still have a viable league. It will not happen. Maybe if they start now, they'll have a viable league in six or seven years, when talent has been replaced and the fans have either forgiven the league or been replaced by people who aren't holding a grudge. Do you really want to lose an entire CBA's worth of revenue? Obviously no one wants that to happen, but if the owners think they have a product without the union as a whole, they're mistaken. By way of contrast, the auto industry still has a product without the UAW.
Okay, maybe the league collapsing is going too far, but things would bottom out dramatically. The NBA works much differently than college sports, the NFL, NHL, or MLB. In those leagues, the sport, the atmosphere/experience, the culture is sold more than it is in the NBA. The NBA doesn't really sell a particular atmosphere, they really reign in the celebrity status/star power of the top players. There's a reason for that too, and that's because the very sport gears towards one individual having far more influence on the success of a team than it does in other sports. Yes, in things like college basketball or international basketball, they are successful at selling a particular program/franchise and a culture, but I think their audiences have different expectations when it comes to those particular leagues. When it comes to the NBA, sure, you'll still have an audience that is attracted to pro basketball and wants to just root for the front of a jersey, but the reason the NBA is so damn huge is because the star power brings in the bookoo bucks. You're right that that is not all of the players being sold, but I think the lower players are apart of that entity by extension.
I don't necessarily disagree with the points you're making, I just don't see how it follows from that that the negotiation breakdown is the players fault and responsibility. Maybe people here just really care about the lower/mid level players, but it doesn't seem like they're really blaming the union reps and top players for failing the lower players, but rather that they're blaming them for the negotiations falling apart, as if the onus was more on them to make it work. I don't see why that should be the case.
I'm sure some of this turnout is about egos, but to suggest that only one side has that issue, seems very partisan to me. It seems to me that a lot of the criticisms made towards the players--that they're greedy, stubborn/hot-headed, poorly representing their entire constituents--could all be legitimately made towards the owners as well. Yes, the last deal the players had was very favorable for them (despite that not being expected at the time it was agreed to) and the owners have had losses, some of those losses were legit, some of them were from their own incompetence. The players assoc. has recognized the favorable nature of the previous CBA and have been ready to come down from that figure for a while now. They eventually came down to a 50/50 BRI with enough time left for a decent length season, but then the owners didn't just want the BRI split as is, they wanted to take everything with the system issues as well. Then they gave them ultimatums and threats to cap it off.
I don't necessarily disagree with the points you're making, I just don't see how it follows from that that the negotiation breakdown is the players fault and responsibility. Maybe people here just really care about the lower/mid level players, but it doesn't seem like they're really blaming the union reps and top players for failing the lower players, but rather that they're blaming them for the negotiations falling apart, as if the onus was more on them to make it work. I don't see why that should be the case.
I'm sure some of this turnout is about egos, but to suggest that only one side has that issue, seems very partisan to me. It seems to me that a lot of the criticisms made towards the players--that they're greedy, stubborn/hot-headed, poorly representing their entire constituents--could all be legitimately made towards the owners as well. Yes, the last deal the players had was very favorable for them (despite that not being expected at the time it was agreed to) and the owners have had losses, some of those losses were legit, some of them were from their own incompetence. The players assoc. has recognized the favorable nature of the previous CBA and have been ready to come down from that figure for a while now. They eventually came down to a 50/50 BRI with enough time left for a decent length season, but then the owners didn't just want the BRI split as is, they wanted to take everything with the system issues as well. Then they gave them ultimatums and threats to cap it off.
Superman and Vlade4GM, while I understand where you two are coming from I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your assessments, and here is why: it's quite simple actually. The players just simply had it way too good in the last agreement. I just can't take the idea of how good they had it out of my head.
Oh I agree! There's not doubt that especially the top players have plenty of money in the bank. But losing a million dollars or close to it, is still losing a million dollars. Tell Donald Trump he just lost a million dollars and see what reaction you get. The one thing I would take issue with is that nearly all NBA players have lucrative incomes outside the court. No doubt that the top players have contracts with Nike, Rebok etc. But I've never seen a tennis shoe with Daniel Gibsons name on it. There is close to 450 players in the NBA, and I would suspect that around 350 of them have little coming in outside their NBA paychecks.
What is shocking about that list, is how many NBA players that are on it. Especially when you consider where the NBA is in the pecking order of most watched sports. That alone shows that everything is out of wack, and adjustments need to be done. As an example! An average of 2.6 million people per game watched the NBA finals last season. While, 20.9 million people watched the Pat's/Jets game last weekend. The NBA isn't even in the same ballpark (excuse the pun) as Baseball and the NFL. I didn't even mention auto racing. Oh wait, I just did. Yet NBA players are right at the top of the list in average income.
To my mind, this is how it works. Or should work! Salaries should be directly related to the gross income of whichever league were talking about. If the NFL is able to aquire an TV contract worth lets say 40 billion dollars over a 10 year period, and the NBA is able to aquire a TV contract of 10 billion dollars over a 10 year period, then it appears to me that the NFL is putting out a product that has more demand. Therefore the players should be paid proportionally. Of course there are many ways to shoot holes in that scenario. In the NBA the owners got into this trouble by accepting the premise that the players were equal partners. Sounds good until you start dividing up the money. Now the owners have realized their mistake, and want to backtrack as far as they can. People don't like it when you try and take back what they were used to getting. Take a look at Greece!
What you have is an imperfect union operating within an imperfect framework of a system, that sort of makes up the rules as it goes along, and trying to stay within anti-trust rules while they do it. And both sides eventually have to agree to whatever the rules are. Both sides are at fault here, and I could make a case for either side. So when that happens, you have to step back and figure out where the common good lies, and not about whats fair or not. No matter what the outcome, someone's going to think its unfair. Hell, war is unfair, but eventually there's always a winner.
Personally, I think the players have given up quite a bit. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the league to tweak the deal a little more for the players and move on. But obviously the owners, or at least some of the owners, and it must be a group large enough to affect a vote, think they hold a bigger stick than the players do. I don't know David Stern, and I can't pretend to know his true intentions. But it appears to me that he truely wanted to make a deal. An while he has a lot of power, is does in fact work for the owners, and has to represent what the majority wants. If your Billy Hunter, its a lot easier to keep 450 players somewhat in the dark, than it is for Stern with 30 owners who sign the checks.
My advice to the owners is, your not going to get everything you want this time around. You've gotten a lot! Take it to the bank and wait till next time. My advise to the players is, your losing a lot of money you'll never get back. If you eventually get damages, it'll take you years to get them and by then the league as we knew it will have been destroyed. This isn't just about you as individuals. Your throwing away all the benefits for retired players as well. Go sit down and make a deal. Like the league, your not going to get everything you want. Thats the way life is!
What is shocking about that list, is how many NBA players that are on it. Especially when you consider where the NBA is in the pecking order of most watched sports. That alone shows that everything is out of wack, and adjustments need to be done. As an example! An average of 2.6 million people per game watched the NBA finals last season. While, 20.9 million people watched the Pat's/Jets game last weekend. The NBA isn't even in the same ballpark (excuse the pun) as Baseball and the NFL. I didn't even mention auto racing. Oh wait, I just did. Yet NBA players are right at the top of the list in average income.
To my mind, this is how it works. Or should work! Salaries should be directly related to the gross income of whichever league were talking about. If the NFL is able to aquire an TV contract worth lets say 40 billion dollars over a 10 year period, and the NBA is able to aquire a TV contract of 10 billion dollars over a 10 year period, then it appears to me that the NFL is putting out a product that has more demand. Therefore the players should be paid proportionally. Of course there are many ways to shoot holes in that scenario. In the NBA the owners got into this trouble by accepting the premise that the players were equal partners. Sounds good until you start dividing up the money. Now the owners have realized their mistake, and want to backtrack as far as they can. People don't like it when you try and take back what they were used to getting. Take a look at Greece!
What you have is an imperfect union operating within an imperfect framework of a system, that sort of makes up the rules as it goes along, and trying to stay within anti-trust rules while they do it. And both sides eventually have to agree to whatever the rules are. Both sides are at fault here, and I could make a case for either side. So when that happens, you have to step back and figure out where the common good lies, and not about whats fair or not. No matter what the outcome, someone's going to think its unfair. Hell, war is unfair, but eventually there's always a winner.
Personally, I think the players have given up quite a bit. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the league to tweak the deal a little more for the players and move on. But obviously the owners, or at least some of the owners, and it must be a group large enough to affect a vote, think they hold a bigger stick than the players do. I don't know David Stern, and I can't pretend to know his true intentions. But it appears to me that he truely wanted to make a deal. An while he has a lot of power, is does in fact work for the owners, and has to represent what the majority wants. If your Billy Hunter, its a lot easier to keep 450 players somewhat in the dark, than it is for Stern with 30 owners who sign the checks.
My advice to the owners is, your not going to get everything you want this time around. You've gotten a lot! Take it to the bank and wait till next time. My advise to the players is, your losing a lot of money you'll never get back. If you eventually get damages, it'll take you years to get them and by then the league as we knew it will have been destroyed. This isn't just about you as individuals. Your throwing away all the benefits for retired players as well. Go sit down and make a deal. Like the league, your not going to get everything you want. Thats the way life is!
I agree with you, I think it's apparent now that they had it too good. Things need to change, but the players have been willing to change from where things were, and it's my opinion that the owners have not been willing to meet them half-way, to say the least. I think there are many legitimate concerns when it comes to system issues, but I think they've gone too far.
I think most reasonable people would agree, that if your given a proposal by the league, and you decide not to have the membership vote on it, and then you decide to file a disclaimer of interest, you have broken off negotiations. You can't negotiate with a union that no longer exists. Yes, I realize that Stern rendered the proposal along with what sounded a lot like an untimatum. But those kind of untimatums are very common in negotiations. If I'm not mistaken, Stern had given an ultimatum of 5 PM on a thursday and continued to negotiate past that deadline.
If the players wanted leverage in this area, they should have come back with a counter proposal. Then if the league walked away, the union could have blamed the league for ending negotiations. They didn't! Another stupid mistake...
If the players wanted leverage in this area, they should have come back with a counter proposal. Then if the league walked away, the union could have blamed the league for ending negotiations. They didn't! Another stupid mistake...
I think deciding a vote is a big decision because it can hurt your leverage in negotiations. The union affords the union reps the power to decide on whether to put something to a vote because the alternative of a "pure democracy" is impractical. So I can't blame them for not putting it to a vote. Does that mean the tactic they have since taken was the best one? I don't know, maybe not, but I don't think that means they're more responsible for negotiations falling apart. They had to do something radical at that point, unless you think for some reason they were obligated to cave.
Yes, they're technically the ones breaking off negotiations, but do you really want to play the technicality card? What kind of negotiation is "take it now, or it gets worse. I'm super serious this time" over and over? Especially when the offer did not really improve all that much even though they did negotiate past the first deadline. I'm not really one to know how serious Stern was the last time, but it's hard for me to say that I'd have a better read on it than the union reps would, so I'm kind of left with no choice but to take Stern at face value.
Yes, they're technically the ones breaking off negotiations, but do you really want to play the technicality card? What kind of negotiation is "take it now, or it gets worse. I'm super serious this time" over and over? Especially when the offer did not really improve all that much even though they did negotiate past the first deadline. I'm not really one to know how serious Stern was the last time, but it's hard for me to say that I'd have a better read on it than the union reps would, so I'm kind of left with no choice but to take Stern at face value.
Where are the players asking for more money? They've already indicated a willingness to take up to 7% less than what they've been making, down to a 50/50 split. Now they want to continue collective bargaining, and the owners' response has been to issue ultimatums: "If you don't accept this agreement, we're going to pull it and offer you even less." That's not an effective method of collective bargaining. It's a bully move, and it has nothing to do with profitability.
It's that kind of comment, coupled with the idea that the players are being greedy because they make millions for playing a game and aren't willing to just take whatever the owners are offering and say thank you, that makes an argument seem partisan.
However...
Many people do have a solid understanding of the issues involved, and aren't just saying "take the deal and play!" You stress competitive balance, which I believe is the single most important factor pertaining to the long-term health of the league. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, not the least of which is installing a more oppressive cap/tax system. Still, this is an issue of the owners rescuing themselves from themselves, not from the players. The owners have allowed their committed salaries to exceed the maximum BRI that the players can earn, which highlights the fact that the owners have hurt themselves with the contracts they've handed out. So now, they're asking for the players to make them whole, when they are hurting themselves just as much. That's not to say that the players don't need to make serious concessions; they do. It's just to highlight the fact that the owners either need to exercise restraint or be restrained by the force of a stronger cap/tax system.
Like you, my point of view coincides with that of the owners as well. Still, I don't think the players are greedy for being unwilling to have terms dictated to them in what is supposed to be collective bargaining.
I wrote about this earlier. I don't think anyone is partisan because they believe the players need to make concessions. I wouldn't use the word partisan to begin with. However, I do think it's unfair to point the finger at the players and call them greedy because they aren't leaping at whatever the owners are trying to shove down their throats.
As of this week, the players are idiots for trying to take this labor fight to the courts. This situation will only be solved through collective bargaining, as the NFL labor fight showed us. The players will gain zero leverage from their legal actions. So I understand any acrimony toward the players right now. Still, I don't think the owners are negotiating in good faith, nor do I think the players should just take whatever the owners are willing to offer them without regard for BRI or other system issues. Take the owners side, that's fine. But this whole "how much money do these greedy players need to feed their families" complaint is off base.
It's that kind of comment, coupled with the idea that the players are being greedy because they make millions for playing a game and aren't willing to just take whatever the owners are offering and say thank you, that makes an argument seem partisan.
However...
Many people do have a solid understanding of the issues involved, and aren't just saying "take the deal and play!" You stress competitive balance, which I believe is the single most important factor pertaining to the long-term health of the league. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, not the least of which is installing a more oppressive cap/tax system. Still, this is an issue of the owners rescuing themselves from themselves, not from the players. The owners have allowed their committed salaries to exceed the maximum BRI that the players can earn, which highlights the fact that the owners have hurt themselves with the contracts they've handed out. So now, they're asking for the players to make them whole, when they are hurting themselves just as much. That's not to say that the players don't need to make serious concessions; they do. It's just to highlight the fact that the owners either need to exercise restraint or be restrained by the force of a stronger cap/tax system.
Like you, my point of view coincides with that of the owners as well. Still, I don't think the players are greedy for being unwilling to have terms dictated to them in what is supposed to be collective bargaining.
I wrote about this earlier. I don't think anyone is partisan because they believe the players need to make concessions. I wouldn't use the word partisan to begin with. However, I do think it's unfair to point the finger at the players and call them greedy because they aren't leaping at whatever the owners are trying to shove down their throats.
As of this week, the players are idiots for trying to take this labor fight to the courts. This situation will only be solved through collective bargaining, as the NFL labor fight showed us. The players will gain zero leverage from their legal actions. So I understand any acrimony toward the players right now. Still, I don't think the owners are negotiating in good faith, nor do I think the players should just take whatever the owners are willing to offer them without regard for BRI or other system issues. Take the owners side, that's fine. But this whole "how much money do these greedy players need to feed their families" complaint is off base.
What does that have to do with the price of beans in Albuquerque? I don't care what their BRI split is, now or then. Their recently expired 57% is wild, and I get why that's coming down to 50/50. But the players have indicated a willingness to accept 50/50. So what's that got to do with what I'm saying?
The players' side has done a lot of things wrong recently, including not immediately countering the most recent deal.
Still, offering a deal and then saying "if you don't take this deal by X, we're pulling the offer and reducing it" isn't collective bargaining. It's an ultimatum any way you cut it.
Another thing, people keep saying that if a deal isn't done by a certain date, the owners will lose this much money because of lost games and such, and will want to make that up by reducing the percentage to the players. I think that's nonsense. You do a 6-10 year deal, and you lose 40% of your revenue in Year 1, so you expect to make that 40% back this year and every year of the deal? No. If you're motivated by deadlines because you don't want to lose money, then be willing to compromise so you can strike a deal before your deadline, and then you don't lose money.
Still, offering a deal and then saying "if you don't take this deal by X, we're pulling the offer and reducing it" isn't collective bargaining. It's an ultimatum any way you cut it.
Another thing, people keep saying that if a deal isn't done by a certain date, the owners will lose this much money because of lost games and such, and will want to make that up by reducing the percentage to the players. I think that's nonsense. You do a 6-10 year deal, and you lose 40% of your revenue in Year 1, so you expect to make that 40% back this year and every year of the deal? No. If you're motivated by deadlines because you don't want to lose money, then be willing to compromise so you can strike a deal before your deadline, and then you don't lose money.