NEW YORK — Player representatives from each of the 30 NBA teams will meet Monday in New York, and it is a guessing game as to what happens from there.
Reject that deal that is on the table and demand further talks?
Approve a vote of the entire player population but refuse to endorse the owners’ latest offer?
Endorse the growing decertification movement?
We will find out soon enough.
In the meantime, some details have emerged of what is contained in the latest proposal. The most thorough article on that subject comes from Howard Beck of the New York Times:
“A faction of disenchanted players could file petitions to decertify the union as soon as Monday, according to an agent who was briefed on the effort. The dissident faction has reportedly collected more than 240 signatures, more than enough to force an election. The petition will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board, which could take 45 to 60 days to schedule the vote. A simple majority is needed to dissolve the union, after which the players could sue the N.B.A. under antitrust law. Alternatively, union leaders could issue a “disclaimer of interest” and disband the union immediately. The hope for the players is that the threat of a legal challenge will push the N.B.A. to improve its offer. But there are many legal hurdles, and no clear outcome. According to league and union officials, the revised offer on the table includes the following improvements: The midlevel exception for tax-paying teams would be worth $3 million, with a maximum three-year contract, and could be used annually. (The league had proposed $2.5 million, with a two-year maximum, for use every other year.) A new exception, worth $2.5 million, for up to two years, was created for teams that are just below the cap (i.e. with less than $2.5 million of cap room). Taxpaying teams would retain the right to conduct sign-and-trade deals in the first two years of the agreement, but would be banned from doing so starting in the third year. Previously, the league proposed banning them immediately. The minimum team salary would be set at 85 percent of the cap, and increase to 90 percent in the third year of the deal. Players signed using so-called Bird rights would get 6.5 percent annual raises, up from 5.5 percent in the prior offer. Players who sign contracts below the average salary would be eligible for opt-out clauses (which are otherwise banned, except in limited situations). The 10-year labor deal would include a mutual opt-out after the sixth year — at the union’s request — instead of the seventh.”
NBA LOCKOUT SHOULD RESULT IN CITIES TURNING-IN DROVES-AGAINST THE NBA AND FANS BOYCOTTING THE NBA INTO THE 2019-2020 NBA SEASON.WHY SHOULD CITIZENS ACROSS THE COUNTRY TURN AGAINST THE NBA?BECAUSE WHILE THE CURRENT LOCKOUT IS GOING ON THERE IS NO MONEY COMING INTO THE ARENAS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS OR ARE IN DANGER OF DOING SO;THE LOCKOUT IS ALSO PUTTING LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND/OR SPORTS BARS IN A VERY PRECARIOUS POSITION AND IN DANGER OF TANKING IN THOSE CITIES WHERE NBA TEAMS ARE STRUGGLING.THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THOSE RESTAURANTS AND/OR SPORTS BARS-AND THEIR EMPLOYEES-ARE NOT GOING TO FEEL VERY SYMPATHETIC TOWARD THE NBA PLAYERS OR OWNERS, ARE THEY?
I like how the players only recourse is to basically go against their own set goals of preserving the league as best they can for future players. Why is this a strong and effective threat and more importantly why exactly is it even the best course of action? They would arguably be setting the league back more than any proposal the owners have given.
Then again Chris’ entire viewpoint was based on the fact that the owners and players need each other and if they would deal in kind and stop playing hardball it would be better for both parties.
I think in this case the union members should be allowed to vote. Only those scared of a vote want to pull back that right. Even David Falk is on board with that according to the Beck NYT article.
More importantly, the unique thing with the NBA players union is that the interests and compensation levels are vastly different when compared to say a typical UAW contract where most workers are within a narrow band of skills, pay and interest.
Kevin Garnett? He’s made $300 million in his career which is almost over. He can afford to litigate for years on “principle”. LeBron? Ditto, and he can write his own ticket in either a new US league or any overseas league he wants.
Charlie Villanueva? He’ll likely never earn another contract like the one he’s got. If they miss the season, he won’t ever recoup that $7 million. Aaron Gray? A guy like that probably figures he’ll be at the vet min no matter what for most of his career, but that this lockout robs him of valuable time to showcase his game in the hope of a big payday.
The interests and needs of each player are widely different. Really the only entity right now that clearly doesn’t want this deal are the agents.
At the end of the day though, this CBA shouldn’t bother them all that much. Unfortunately the owners have left in or created so many loopholes and exceptions that the smart agents will thrive. And since contract terms are shorter, the agents will be needed more. They’ll just have to work harder, that’s all.
I know it’s not central to your point, but Chalie Villanueva’s contract is one of the more objectionable ones 🙂
It may not be rational in terms of immediate dollars to fight back against the teams, but the whole perception that the players don’t have any leverage is based on the teams assuming that the players will eventually roll over and let the owners get whatever they want.
So in order for the union to *ever* be taken seriously by this group of owners, they’re left with the unappealing option of continuing to say “no” until the owners understand that they’ll each individually lose hundreds of millions of dollars.
The teams may have screwed this whole thing up by assuming that the players aren’t willing to sacrifice money when they might be unwilling to tolerate the owners’ disrespect and condescension.
Stern might have gotten us all here a lot faster by just laying his ultimatum on the table and saying “you guys are a bunch of pansies so just give us a call when you’ve accepted it.”
It’s not so much about “what’s right for the league” as the underlying assumption from the teams that the players shouldn’t have any actual say in determining that.
if the teams persist in being so utterly disrespectful in trying to get whatever they want for whatever reasons they want it, they’re blowing up the chance to have a season simply because they want to get away with being jerks in the negotiation.
i WISH this were simply about money, but with guys like MJ leading the owners’ charge, there’s little hope of getting a resolution and saving the season.
i have the irritating feeling that i’m gonna learn waaaay more than i want to know about anti-trust law in the next few months.
larry coon is a delight and all, but the more demand there is for his particular expertise, the less likely that we’ll see any actual basketball.
I can only imagine the union bringing it to a vote if the players clearly demand it. But if it’s another David Stern ultimatum, the union leadership would be insulting the players by making them get together and vote on something that they’ve had no say in creating.
—
What’s with throwing in a unilateral non-starter like “we’re no longer going to guarantee rookie contracts, but instead of waiving you, we’re going to hold onto your rights for five whole years even though the existence of non-negotiated rookie contracts are a one-sided benefit to team owners in the first place” ?– trying to slip nondiscussed game-changing concessions like that into a take-it-or-leave-it proposal is pretty much the opposite of good-faith negotiating.
It goes against every single principle that the players are fighting for. And it’s nonsense to say that “we can negotiate on that stuff, but you have to agree on the split and the cap system.”
If Stern refuses to treat the players’ union with even the smallest amount of respect, what are they even there for? If Stern is blocking them from conducting an effective negotiation, decertification is only a formality because the teams are acting like they don’t exist in the first place.
if the owners are bluffing, then it’s just negotiation tactic bullshit. if they’re NOT, then it’s been an antitrust lawsuit in the making from day one.
with no disrespect to your point of view and opinions, i’m gonna stop discussing this for now. there’s GOT to be better stuff to do with our saturdays…
prolly gonna go opine about how Penn State should get the death penalty since their athletic director’s involvement in the Sandusky cover up implicates the whole program. was what SMU did somehow a worse reflection on a program than this?
or maybe i’ll breath some fresh air somehow…
Fans Should ask people who’ve lost their jobs, or whose restaurants have been foreclosed upon because of the NBA lockout, to join them in REFUSING TO HAVE AN NBA TEAM IN ANY U.S. CITY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE! The NBA must somehow be made to look like GARBAGE and believe me, the people who worked for the arenas in various capacities or the local businesses that depended upon NBA Games BEING PLAYED WILL NOT FEEL ANY SYMPATHY FOR THE NBA OWNERS OR PLAYERS;LET’S TAKE A STAND HERE, PEOPLE, AND STOP “PAYING RANSOM TO KIDNAPPERS”! LET US COMMIT OURSELVES TO BOYCOTTING THE NBA UNTIL THE YEAR 2020!
Man, I’d actually typed up and erased a post a couple of days ago on here predicting that when Stern came back to the table with a proposal that it’d be just the same ol’ garbage.
It just felt too negative to post.
And now that we’ve seen the details of the owners’ proposal… well crap.
—-
In other news — Isiah Thomas wants Billy Hunter’s job! Were my stomach full when I read that this morning, my wretch would have been vomit in my mouth.
Isn’t one ruined basketball league enough for that man? He’s the on-court Michael Jordan of off-court executive basketball failure.
How is this deal the same old garbage? The league has come off their initial positions on about 10 different items from the proposal last Sunday? They can now do Dwight Howard and Chris Paul sign and trades to the Lakers and Knicks. The MLE can be used every year by taxpayers for a longer term and more dollars. And a new quasi MLE was created. The repeat lux tax offenders now have to be over 4 of 5 years rather than 3. Bird raises went up a full percentage point.
If you mean the league hasn’t caved on every system principle the players and agents object to, then yes, it is the same old garbage.
I think Stern and the owners are done. They’ve given back some rope in the tug of war from where they were on Sunday. At this point they are negotiating against themselves.
Time to vote. And if the players don’t want the deal, then let them vote it down.
i refer to it as “the same old garbage” because it’s not substantially different from what he originally put out. it seems like you can negotiate with him for days without really getting anywhere.
i suppose my perception of it as “garbage” is really mostly related to his tone and general disrespect for the players as indicated by all the misleading half-truths that he constantly spits out whenever a camera is on him.
I’d even concede that it might actually be a good thing for players to have a legit shot at competing for a championship in whatever market they get drafted into — it’s just that David Stern’s words just never seem to match up to what he goes ahead and does.
Maybe you’re right and this IS an acceptable proposal in terms of system issues, but from what I’ve perceived, they’re trying to change around other language to undermine what they’re saying they’ve conceded. Like when they said “ok, no hard cap — here’s a luxury tax system that functions the same way.”
I’m not even saying I have a problem with a hard cap, per se. It’s just that Stern has established his MO as assuming the union leadership can’t read. It’s extremely counterproductive.
The key thing in an anti trust lawsuit is how you define the market. Narrow or broad. If a court defines the labor market for these players as solely the ability to play for one of 30 NBA teams, then the players have a good shot.
However, I think the NBA has an extremely good case at defining the market as something much larger, including the other worldwide basketball leagues. Additionally, I think in today’s new world, the NBA also could be considered simply one form of entertainment in a huge marketplace of entertainment.
The NBA has to compete in the broad market that includes all sports, movies, media, etc. And the NBA can make a good case that they need these restrictions in order to put the best product out there for the general public to compete in is broader market. Thus no anti trust issues.
Finally, unlike any time in the last 50 years, the barriers to entry for a new league are as low as ever. Prior sports anti trust law was focused on the fact that you needed a TV contract from one of only three major networks for your league to function. Barring that, no chance to succeed. However today with the Internet and cable, there are plenty of ways a new league can get their product broadcast.
Players have an uphill battle in court.
“However, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in American Needle Inc. v. NFL established the NFL as a “cartel” of 32 independent businesses subject to antitrust law, not a single entity.”
If the supreme court can rule that way in the NFL, I don’t see how the NBA will be any different.
How many other countries have professional football (American style)? There are many countries with professional basketball. See any difference yet?
Why do other countries matter? This is US anti-trust law. Not world anti-trust law. American workers shouldn’t be forced to get jobs in their field overseas due to monopoly in the United States.
Michael: you really make no sense. There is plenty of channels — tv, radio, internet — that are available should the players want to form their own league. Further, there are plenty of people/companies that have the revenue to sponsor the athletes.
Once again, if the players (employees) don’t like this deal, they should look at other avenues to earn income. Similar to you and I. If we don’t like the employment deals we have, we can look elsewhere.
American Needle was a case where you had a little guy long time manufacturer being cut out in favor of a big boy in Reebok. I’m not sure the same sympathy dynamic is at play here.
More importantly, in the Needle opinion the justices specifically said that sports leagues CAN institute rules for competitive balance, etc. They contrasted this with the issue of Needle which didnt have anything to do with competitive balance.
Finally, the Needle case developed over a ten year period. Court actions like this take years to resolve. Hope guys like Paul Pierce and Dudley can wait that long for things to be resolved.
@Mark-Have you noticed that not a single one of these exhibition all-star games has been televised on a major network? Hmm.. wonder why? Couldn’t have anything to do with the NBA right.
You make starting a league sound so easy. Basically what the NBA is saying legally, except our deal or start your own league. Oh btw, anybody who helps you will face backlash by us. Hence why we have prevented exhibition games being televised nationally so far.
So no, stop comparing NBA athletes to you and me. They are not the same as much as you seem to think so. There is a reason decertification makes sense for athletes, and zero sense to regular employees. Your continued failure to understand these differences is puzzling at best.
@paul-You’re going to have provide evidence in that opinion where “competitive balance” as you claim to be supported by Needle relates to anything the NBA is doing now.
And yes, it wouldn’t surprise me if Needle took long to complete. That’s the problem with decertifying, it will take a long time to come to a conclusion. At the same time, you fail to mention that a long trial would significantly hurt NBA owners. Their expenses won’t go away during a trial. Not to mention, if they were to lose, at least there is a payoff at the end for the players. There is nothing but hundreds of millions, perhaps billions in expenses for the owners. Not to mention all the other lawsuits from cities/states suing the league for misusing tax payer funds to finance arenas that they are locking players out of.
You seem to fail to adequately recognize that the NBA created that field. There was plenty of basketball being played before the NBA created, nurtured and promoted the league to the point it’s at today. There’s nothing the NBA does that prevents the players from finding other rich people to create another league. Good luck finding those billionaires willing to invest in such a venture without the infrastructure and marketing that the NBA has built up to enable the players to make so much money, but that “field” is open to them if they feel they can get a better deal than what the NBA is offering. I have no doubt some owners for a new league can be found, but it would likely be decades before the “product” (the players) will come close to producing the revenues, thus player income, that they get now. The sense of entitlement that these players have is incredible. If they want totally free player movement, perhaps they should pay for the coaching, training, medical, and other investments that the teams put into them. Why shouldn’t a team that has invested so much into a player have greater ability, within the league, to retain them?
p00ka: Exactly. Well stated.
@Pooka- I’m going to copy/past my reply to Mark earlier in response to your post
“Nobody is prohibiting the players from generating income “elsewhere”. The problem is, “elsewhere” consists of creating a new league. Why is that the ONLY option? Because the NBA is a monopoly.
The players can sue the league because of this. The only reason the league exists in its current form is due to cooperation by the UNION. When the union disbands, the NBA is no longer exempt from anti-trust laws.
So instead of starting their own league, it makes a BAJILLION times more sense to just sue the NBA for acting in an illegal manner. I don’t understand why this doesn’t make sense to you. But this is the reality. This is why the players are looking into decertification and not into starting their own league. Professional basketball in the US is not a free market. If it was, the players wouldn’t be on the verge of decertification.”
With regards to your last point, I find the owners perspecitive that they should be entitled to profits regardless of quality of management to be more appalling than anything the players feel “entitled” too.
Also, the players pay for all those things you stated. Recall, they only get to keep about 50% of the revenues the NBA currently brings in, that they bring in entirely due to the players. Hence why the NBA is more popular than college basketball or the D-league.
And lastly, teams already have a greater ability to keep their own players. They can force draft picks to stay on their team for a minimum of 7 years (i.e. Lebron, Howard, Melo, Wade, etc). What the owner’s are demanding is a system that greater controls their ability to keep players, even when those players want to leave to due to horrendous management (which the owners want to take no responsibility in).
I think it’s really a matter of the fact that the individual employers (the teams) come together to agree on hiring practices (forming a league) that isn’t a straight-up free market system.
If the players don’t have a union for the NBA to negotiate with, the individual teams go back to being individual employers unless they want to end up in an anti-trust suit.
I’m not predicting who will win in court, but on the face of it, without a union to legitimize it’s actions, the NBA is *exactly* what anti-trust laws exist to take down.
A BOYCOTT OF THE NBA- IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RESULTS OF ANY ANTI-TRUST ACTION TAKEN BY THE NBA PLAYERS-IS STILL NEEDED TO SEND A MESSAGE TO BOTH THE NBA OWNERS AND PLAYERS THAT WE-THE FANS-WILL NO LONGER TOLERATE BEUING TAKEN FOR GRANTED BY THE NBA PLAYERS AND OWNERS!
EDIT- I should say the NBA is proposing, not “doing” with respect to the Needle case.
MIchael: you are making my point but don’t even realize it. It is extremely difficult to start a new league that would match the salaries plus benefits currently received by the players. Who is going to pay Marvin Williams 8 million a year plus benefits (chartered air travel, per diem, luxury hotel stays etc)? Doubtful that anyone would. And that is the real barrier to starting a new league.
But we do have a free market. And if Marvin Williams can get someone to pay him that salary plus benefits to perform, than he should take that deal. Good luck finding it.
It is extremely difficult because the NBA is a monopoly that eliminates competition (the ABA) and prevents competition (no networks showing these exhibition all-star games). Why start your own league, when you can just sue the NBA for violating anti-trust laws, which they are clearly doing?
No, we don’t have a free market. If we did, the players would be getting paid based upon what they are worth, their salaries wouldn’t be capped, and they wouldn’t be restricted in where they can play. That’s about as anti-free market as you can get.
The players are not prohibited from getting other people to pay for their talents. If Marvin Williams wants to take his talents to the local gym and try to sell tickets to the public, he can.
And if the players wanted to form a league, there are plenty of tv, radio and internet channels that would pay for the rights.
You want it both ways. On one hand, the players are the market. On the other hand, they can’t sell their talents other than relying on 29 owners.
This isnt the 1970’s anymore with the ABA or the 80’s with the USFL. Oprah and Glenn Beck started their own networks. Sheridan just started up his own website and we all like to hang out here it seems. Frankly I come here first for lockout news versus ESPN.com. 🙂
NHL games are on some cable channel (Versus) along with fishing and hunting shows.
The simple fact that the players would need to invest a reasonably decent amount of their own capital in organizing and promoting a new league and taking some risk in the process isn’t proof of the fact the owners are conspiring to prevent it.
This is my last post directed towards you because this convo is going nowhere. Nobody is prohibiting the players from generating income “elsewhere”. The problem is, “elsewhere” consists of creating a new league. Why is that the ONLY option? Because the NBA is a monopoly.
The players can sue the league because of this. The only reason the league exists in its current form is due to cooperation by the UNION. When the union disbands, the NBA is no longer exempt from anti-trust laws.
So instead of starting their own league, it makes a BAJILLION times more sense to just sue the NBA for acting in an illegal manner. I don’t understand why this doesn’t make sense to you. But this is the reality. This is why the players are looking into decertification and not into starting their own league. Professional basketball in the US is not a free market. If it was, the players wouldn’t be on the verge of decertification.
Even IF THE NBA Players DO INITIATE ANTITRUST ACTION AGAINST THE OWNERS THEY FACE AN UPHILL BATTLE! I DO NOT FEEL THE LEAST BIT SORRY FOR EITHER SIDE. CITIES THAT HAVE HAD NBA TEAMS SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER RETHINKING THEIR COMMITMENT TO THE NBA AS RESULT OF THIS LOCKOUT! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE HAVOC WROUGHT BY THE LOCKOUT IN MANY U.S. CITIES! PEOPLE WHO, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN,ARE UNEMPLOYED OR FACE THE PROSPECT OF BEING UNEMPLOYED BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY COMING INTO THOSE CITIES BECAUSE NO NBA GAMES ARE BEING PLAYED. ALSO, IF NO BUSINESSES ARE GETTING CUSTOMERS ALSO BECAUSE OF THE LOCKOUT, THAT WOULD MAKE ME TURN AGAINST THE NBA TOO!
If the Union for the NBA players IS DROPPING THE BALL IT SHOULD CEASE TO EXIST! If the NBA PLAYERS’ ASSOCIATION IS NOT ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ITS MEMBERS THEN THAT-AND THAT REASON ALONE-SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR DECERTIFICATION OF THE UNION.
A BOYCOTT BY THE FANS SHOULD STILL BE THE CONSEQUENCE OF THIS LOCKOUT-AND AN ESPECIALLY DEVASTATING ONE SAIMED AT THE NBA-TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO MORE WORK STOPPAGES OF ANY KIND!
Michael -Should all the players be allowed to vote on the current proposal next Tuesday?
I don’t know. It sounds like the players seem to be against the current proposals based on public reports. Not sure what the consequences of having a vote against the deal would be. I’d need more analysis on the pro’s and con’s of what would happen if the players publicly voted down the deal.
Michael: are you suggesting that the union shouldn’t be allowed to vote? You’ve just lectured us on the “monopoly” of the owners and now you want to prohibit union members from deciding whether the deal for them is good or bad. Interesting.
Actually, it’s the Union’s job to present only a the best possible deal they feel they can get, and then offer such deal to the players. It’s standard practice among unions. Many union employees don’t follow this stuff and look for the union to guidance when making decisions. Take Nick Young for example. Based on interviews with him, he doesn’t have a clue what is going on and appears to be a guy who will vote with whatever the Union thinks is acceptable. If the Union presents an offer they don’t think is in their best interest to the players, they are doing a diservice to the players, especially the one’s who have been taking an active role in the process.
This is standard operating practice. The employees empower the union to do what is in their best interest. Now if you want to have a debate on that, fine, I’m not interested.
Fuck your smart cunt Michael, which player are you secretly pretending to be Michael
I’m just a fan who bother to educate himself on the issues. Frankly, if anyone bothered to educate themselves on this topic, I don’t see how you could possibly be in favor of anything the owners are proposing. Forget the fact their proposals are just plain not fair, they’re terrible for the league because they decrease parity and address none of the financial issue that are problematic for the NBA.
That is probably the reason fans are saying they’ll watch high school or college ball, Michael. And THERE SHOULD BE A MASSIVE DEFECTION OF FANS AWAY FROM THE NBA-BECAUSE THERE IS NO PARITY-AND NO CHANCE FOR SMALL-MARKET TEAMS TO COMPETE. Also, there are a number of complaints about the officiating at NBA games. If what those fans are saying is true, THEN THEY SHOULD DEFECT TO HIGH SCHOOL OR COLLEGE BASKETBALL IF THEY THINK THE OFFICIATING IS BETTER! COMMISSIONER DAVID STERN’S TIME HAS INDEED COME-TO STEP DOWN!
It’s time fish and hunter be brutally honest w reps when they have them in room without agents. The players option are very limited and none will give them exactly what they want. 1. Can come out of meeting trying to b positive about deal and say players will vote for deal if 3 tweaks are made to free agency restrictions. Can’t go for home run. Go for what they can live with. 2. They can reject deal and ask for mor bargaining where they have to be honest and expect stern isn’t bluffing about 47/53 hard cap. 3. They can decert, lose season and sue. Again if there honest, fish and hunter should tell them exactly how decert failed NFL and how if courts were forced to rule, players would have got smacked down hard. The NBA has been planning for decert two years. They will go to court trying to null and void all contracts. Wade’s 15 mil a year out the door and he’ll be getting a lot less when play returns. A law suit brings owners original 37% bri and 42 mil hard cap closer to reality. The choices are bad, worse and catastrophic. The agents blowing smoke at players and somebody needs to paint the darkest side as possible because that is closer to reALity.
I say go positive..put onus on owners by asking for minor tweaks and tell owners vote is scheduled for tues if they do, take best deal possible, fire hunter, start planning new strategy and opt out in 6 years. NLRB and let us play hashtage were epic fails by the leadership.
Where did the NFL’s court case on desertification lose?
Please tell me where?
This should be entertaining.
Lockout lifted in minny court only to be stayed in appellate court in conservative st Louis district in a hdartbeat. They never gave their ruling because NFL players knew it was going against them. They ended uP getting destroyed in new deal. Difference there NFL owners led by kraft threw players some bread crumbs at end to save face. Won’t b happened on Mjeff’s watch. NBA has already file suits in conservative district in ny. How many anti trust suits actually go all the way to where folks in player’s position get their win? Learn from history or suffer it’s fate.
“They never gave their ruling because NFL players knew it was going against them.
Wtf LOL?
Where is your proof of that? The courts ruled the lockout was legal. They never said shit about about desertification.
How about this, just learn from history. And in this case, there is no history so no need to speculate.
Excellent break down. You are 100% on the money.
Most importantly, the players best move right now is to tell Stern, “We will ratify a deal that has the following two or three tweaks on system issues …”
Otherwise it’s hell for the players. Not because of greed, racism, monopolies or a conspiracy, but because of business.
The NBA deal is not as good for players as the old deal, but it is better than any alternative. They should end the fight now and schedule a new fight for six years from now and come back better prepared. In a long fight, teams and the league, which are corporations, can declare bankruptcy, restructure and the billionaires will still be billionaires. Without the NBA, the millionaire players will likely have to fend for scraps with the rest of us.
Moreover, even if the courts rule that the NBA is in violation of antitrust laws, which I doubt, what are the damages to players? How much money have players on the whole missed out on because of the NBA? Exhibit A: 20+ teams losing money. Exhibit B: Eddie Curry. Exhibit C: Rashard Lewis and so on and so on.
I know NBA PLAYERS don’t grow up dreaming about sitting out a season or sitting in a court room listening to lawyers bullshit (especially Kessler) they grow up dreaming about the NBA. Sorry i’m just really fired up about this rubbish.
P.S David Stern seriously knows how to wheel and deal
Yeah, he knows how to wheel and deal. Offer the players a terrible deal and hope idiots like you support him. Seems like his plan is working…
Your an idiot
But yet clearly not on your level of idiocy
Still when owners fire Stern players should try and get him to rep and fire hunter. Stern is a cold killer at bargaining.
Michael: the players are not required to sign a NBA contract. They can take their talents anywhere they want and seek income from any other source. Deron Williams is playing in Turkey for example and other players are making money in other leagues. The players could form their own league or seek a sponsor(s) to market their talents.
So if this is such a bad deal, I say let the free market rule and let the players seek better deals elsewhere. It’s no different than any other employee in this country upset at the deal they have been offered.
Comparing NBA players to my job or your job is way off. They aren’t the same. I get paid to work on something somebody created. Players are the product. Every $ is generated from there labor. The league markets it’s players so much more than teams. They are like musicians, artists or movie stars. Sorry those are different thane what your average Joe does.
Fysh: you’re making my point. Since the players are the product, there should be plenty of other opportunities for them to make money off their skills. Surely, they could form their own league or find other sponsors willing to invest some money to market their skills.
Why are the players limited to playing under terms set by 29 owners? Surely, there are other ways they could make money off their talents.
Or are you really saying that these 29 owners are so important to the marketing of their talents?
“They can take their talents anywhere they want and seek income from any other source”
Actually, when it comes to basketball. They can’t. Because nowhere in the USA is there anything like the NBA. The NBA is a monopoly that eliminates its compeition. Recall the ABA.
“I say let the free market rule and let the players seek better deals elsewhere. It’s no different than any other employee in this country upset at the deal they have been offered.”
If you were a believer in free markets, you would reject this deal because it’s incredibly socialistic in nature. Secondly, they are different because any other employee can seek employment in their field here in the USA. NBA players can’t.
It is pretty hard to inject free market into the equation when the NBA has like 50 years to monopolize the market and has worked as a cartel strictly controlling the business. They have the arenas, they have the tv rights, they have the local gov’ts. What you are talking about is more akin to a revolution than starting up a new business down the street to compete.
I am one of those fans who wish something would happen which would:
1.Bring profitability back to those cities whose citizens are in danger of losing their jobs or seeing their businesses tank BECAUSE OF THE STUPID NBA LOCKOUT;
2.MORE FANS BOYCOTTING THE NBA BECAUSE OF THIS YEAR’S STUPID LOCKOUT AND CONTINUING THE BOYCOTT INTO 2012-13 TO REALLY MAKE THE OWNERS AND PLAYERS PAY DEARLY FOR THEIR ROLES IN THIS WORK STOPPAGE!
Owners have won this war. Taking this so called shit deal and start playing some bball might help in healing some wounds after a while.
I am seriously so sick of this lockout and greedy players. Last week i read an article, Rajon Rondo said he was so bored. Well heres your chance to play. Mr Stern offered you 72 games starting on the 15 of December, better then a lost season, and fans hating your asses. At the end of the day the players are still going to be millioners. Court will look at your decertification case and say get the fuck out of this court room you rich bastards, hungry people all over the world and your complaining that you can’t move freely around free agency market. You guys want to sit around in court rooms and wonder when this shit will be over.
Players are greedy? Giving back $3 billion is greedy? What a joke you are.
And you know what, at the end of the day, the owners will still be billionaires making loads of cash off their teams as Dan Gilbert has done even if you had the old CBA in place.
And I’d love for to tell me what court on Earth would tell the players throw out their case based on your moronic reasoning.
Don’t be jealous of successful people. It only makes you look sad and pathetic.
Man i’m not Jealous of successful people i just want to see the NBA back
Sound pretty jealous and bitter to me
Whatever deal the players agree to, they should lock it in for 40-50 years if they can. The owners will come out of their holes crying again about losing money at the end of the next CBA because player salaries have NOTHING to do with the NBA’s increasing financial expenses/problems.
Also, these proposals by the owners are asinine. Like really, you moron owners are handing the Heat the next 5 titles with these rules. In the East, Chicago, Boston, and maybe the potential of the Knicks are the only teams that have a shot of beating Miami. So what you guys do? You restrict these teams as much as possible while allowing Miami to get rid of Mike Miller and replace him with someone better! C’mon…
And in the West, please it’s going to be a joke. Maybe if the Lakers can still get Howard they might a shot, but the rest of these teams should just pack it in. OKC isn’t going to be willing to spend due tot he increased financial restrictions and all the money they owe Seattle, Memphis isn’t going to spend, same with the Spurs, Dallas will be restricted, the list goes on.
This league is become a joke the next few years. And what’s unfortunate, people are going to be like “Lebron is so great!” cause of all of his eventual success. He still sucks. It’s the system that will save him.
I have been on the player’s side for the most part, but I’m failing to see how they will get any better than the current offer. It seems clear the majority of owners will not budge on wanting to have free agency restrictions on tax paying teams. Not that I agree with that goal (I think if you are going to have restrictions, base it on where team finished in the playoffs like the NFL, not team salary), but 3 mill per for 3 years isn’t so bad, as long as you can use it every year.
The one thing I did read before (from this site I think) is that the owners wanted the tax paying restrictions like not having a full MLE based where a team’s salary would be AFTER signing the free agent.
In other words, if the luxury tax was $70 mill, and a team’s salary was at $66 million, they can’t sign someone to the full $5 million MLE. So a team not even paying the luxury tax should get the “luxury tax” restrictions? Not only does that seem ridiculous, it seems overly complicated (I can think of a lot of “what-ifs” that can let someone finagle around this) It seems much simpler and more common sense to say if a team is in the luxury tax at the start of FA (accounting for cap holds of course), they don’t get the full MLE; if they are under, they do.
Anyway, if I were the players, I would just try to get whatever last minute concessions you can get like this, but don’t let it stop basketball from being played any longer. You aren’t going to get much better than this, and fans are about done with the greediness of this whole lockout.
Excellent commentary. I agree.
Can someone please explain to me how the players are being screwed here? I just don’t get it.
They are being screwed because
1.) The league is cutting a single dollar on player salaries. Player salaries have nothing to do with the NBA’s increasing financial expenses since the last CBA because salaries have been stagnant at 57% since 1998. Cutting salaries doesn’t solve the NBA’s growing $250 million interest/depreciation expenses.
2.) With regards to the system issues, the deal limits player movement and limits the amount of teams that can compete for a certain player’s services. It also increases the gap between the players making max near max contracts, and the players making $3 million and below.. It tries to restrict and limit players that can achieve the so-called “middle class”
Please remember that is a bad deal. Question is take it before it gets worse. Also it doesn’t matter if player’s salary goes down and Fa is restricted. Owners will still raise tix prices, beer prices and want tax payer $ for new stadiums. You can put it on the board..YES!!!
Notice how the Beck article quotes an agent. This is a fine offer for the player and they can opt out after 6 years.
I got my good laugh of the morning after reading this. Its so funny to me when retards try to sound really smart compared to other people by using big words and talking economics that are completely wrong…go to college Michael
It’s pretty easy to sound smart, especially when compared to what you have to say.
You will have to explain what “big words” and “economics” I have said that are completely wrong. This should be good for a laugh.