Hubbard column: The side with the most islands wins

By Jan Hubbard

As far as I can tell, there is no truth to the rumor than in the last couple of weeks, people who participate in the illegal activity of cockfighting have been naming their roosters “David” and “Billy.”

NBA commissioner David Stern and union chief Billy Hunter pecked at each other quite a bit after Stern cancelled the first two weeks of the NBA season. As always, Stern was the aggressor.

In a series of radio and television interviews, Stern came across as more pious than any pope named Pius, and the first one of those guys took office in 140 A.D.

It was a look for the ages – about two millennium’s worth.

But it was effective. The NBA strategy has not changed since Stern became commissioner in 1984. In crucial times, Stern is the ultimate PR weapon – a man politically slick, charmingly eloquent and capable of verbally seducing the most menacing interviewer. He’s been doing it for years and he’s done it to all of us, although it does seem that 27 years of verbal conquests have begun to wear on some critics. 

The players, however, were left flailing and countering with statements that made little sense. Hunter responded to Stern’s point about players losing massive amounts of money by saying the owners are losing money, too.

“The pain is mutual,” Hunter told reporters after a union meeting in the Los Angeles area Friday. “If you’re going to inflict some pain on the players, there is going to be some pain inflicted on them as well.”

Well, yes, that’s true. But a check of the last Forbes Magazine list of wealthiest Americans shows 12 – yes, 12 of 30 – NBA owners among the 400 richest individuals in this country. All are north of $1.4 billion, which is not to suggest they have avoided financial setbacks. Blazers owner Paul Allen recently had to put his island up for sale. That had to hurt.

The Forbes list does not even include owners of the Lakers, Knicks or Bulls – the three most valuable franchises in the league.

No doubt some of the owners whose fortunes are in nine figures rather than 10 will be slightly damaged because of the loss of money. But the difference between the economic pain that will be felt by players compared to owners is the difference between being hit by Mike Tyson or Betty White.

Washington’s Maurice Evans, an officer in the players association, made a point that made very little sense from a players’ perspective when he projected there could be contraction of teams. His intent, I think, was to suggest some owners would be hurt so badly financially that they would lose their franchises.

But here’s news for Mr. Evans. For each team that folds, 15 of your union members will lose their job. Is that what the union wants?

And if teams fold, it will be the weaker ones. So that means less revenue sharing losses for the wealthier teams and ultimately reduced expenses for the league.

Probably not the points that Evans was attempting to make.

Although I haven’t heard all of the interviews Stern did last week, the one point that I thought could have been pursued stronger is why a league that regularly touts how successful it has been is now in such bad financial shape.

Stern continually brought up differences in payrolls of large and small market teams and said the system had been unfair to the smaller markets.

Whose fault is that?

Stern used the example of the Lakers’ payroll ($110 million) and Sacramento’s ($45 million) and said it was not fair to the Kings or their fans.

Who created the system that has led to this? And why? And if it is a lack of foresight, then who’s to say current proposals by the league won’t be equally flawed?

Unfortunately for NBA owners, they have built a relationship with players that most parents try to avoid with their kids. The last two collective bargaining agreements are the equivalent of giving a teenager a Mercedes as a first car.

The teen is a good kid, gets good grades, does not get in trouble but suddenly the parent announces the Mercedes has been traded for a Volkswagon. When asked why, the parent says gas and insurance are too expensive. And the teen asks, “Well then why did you buy it for me in the first place?”

The players, however, continue to be underdogs in this one – at the negotiating table and in the public relations battle. And neither Hunter nor any of the players who speak publicly have been saying anything to further their cause.

Take, for instance, the talk of some players that they will create a players league. Love that one. Let’s take this very slowly.

The first need is a place to play – find non-NBA arenas and negotiate rentals. They can probably find someone or an agency to do that, but . . . it costs money. Up front.

Coaches will be needed and that should be doable, but  . . .  it will cost money.

A training staff with doctors and trainers will be needed . . . and that costs money.

Every team will need a staff on the business side to handle marketing, apparel, public relations and, of course . . .  that costs money.

Referees will be needed. Who will find and hire them? Who will monitor them? And, by the way, who will be commissioner of the league? All of that will . . . cost money.

There is so much more, but let’s say all of these hurdles are cleared for a league of eight, 10 or 12 teams. Then you have to set up travel. When I first began covering the NBA in the ’80s, players traveled commercially. They had to mingle with fans in airports, board with the rest of the passengers and even though they flew in first class, it was much more taxing than it is today.

If the players want the luxurious lifestyle the NBA has provided, they will find out that charter travel is outrageously expensive. And then when players arrive at cities, they have to arrange for a bus to the hotel. NBA teams do not stay at Hiltons, Hyatts and Marriotts. They stay at Ritz Carlton’s and Four Seasons. And those cost  . . . a lot of money.

Let’s say all of this is accomplished. Everything is put into place. Then there is the final, very large question:

What are you playing for? A championship of what?

You think fans are going to pay NBA courtside seat prices of $500, $1,000 or $2,000 to see a long series of exhibition games?

The smartest solution for the players will be to ride the coattails of federal mediator George Cohen and get a guaranteed bottom line figure with a system that is as flexible as the owners will allow it to be. No matter what the system is, if players get a guarantee of more than $2 billion or 50-whatever percent of the basketball related income with yearly guaranteed raises, they will be fine.

Even if they agree to a system that is not as lenient as in the past, as long as they get financial guarantees, they will still get their fair share of the profits because if salaries are repressed below the guarantee, the league will have to write a check at the end of the season to the players. That’s what happened this season.

Or, they can continue to try and outlast the owners and see whose money runs out first. If owners have to continue selling their islands and start selling their yachts and planes, the players will know they are near victory.

Jan Hubbard has written about basketball since 1976 and worked in the NBA league office for eight years in between media stints. His columns will appear every Tuesday on SheridanHoops.com. Follow him on Twitter at @whyhub.