Borat38's Blog

NBA Players' Collective Bargaining Issue: Whose Side Are You On?

By Borat38 | View all Posts
Posted Sunday, February 14, 2010 09:23 AM   2 comments
After 3 heated meetings, NBA owners seem to have backed down from what NBA union VP Adonal Foyle (of the Orlando Magic) called "ludicrous".   The issues of contention between players and owners boil down to the ff:

1) Salary cap: small-market team owners and David Stern want a hard salary cap like that in the NHL, which would forbid the paying of salaries above a specific amount that each team is eligible to pay, regardless of any circumstances.  This is to level the playing field for small and middle-income bracket teams to sign top-level talent that would otherwise all be monopolized by billionaire owners like Paul Allen and Mark Cuban.  The aim here is to avoid having the same 4 or 5 teams contending for the title year after year because they can afford to retain their veteran stars.  The current soft cap is nothing more than a loophole for the super-rich owners to get around this.  
Players' position: players want to retain status quo, and retain exceptions like the Larry Bird Exception, mid-level exception, rookie exception, etc--all of which allow a team to circumvent the luxury tax if a certain player/s fall under any of the above criteria (eg., free agents who are veteran stars, first-round draft picks, free agents with extendable contracts.  Hell, that about covers everyone in uniform except for the temps signed to 10-day contracts)

2) Basketball-Related Income (BRI): Owners want to slash the players' share of Basketball-Related Income from the current 57% (which has been rising year by year ever since 2005) to just under 50%.  If you think NBA players get their share of BRI solely from TV and gate receipts, look again: it includes such things as arena parking fees, broadcast rights, arena signage, NBA merchandise sold anywhere in the world, beverages and snack sales, and mascot and cheerleaders' appearances outside NBA games.  (Yup, the mascots and the skimpily-clad cheerleaders dance, the players get a cut of their income as well.)
Players' position: subject to negotiation, but they immediately opposed the sub-50% revenue sharing in the league's position paper. 

3) Guaranteed contracts:  Owners want to limit their exposure to such purse-draining max-level guaranteed contracts (like those paid out to Allan Houston and Jason Williams--the Nets center, not White Chocolate--who continued to be paid in full even after getting jailed for shooting his driver) when a player's career ends for whatever reason.  Owners want only 50% of a guaranteed contract to be fully guaranteed.  That means if you get career-ending injury, get jailed or die, you or your family get half of what was promised you.
Players' position: they want the 100% guarantee in place, bar none.

4) Long-term contracts and maximum salaries:  Owners want long-term contracts to be shortened from the current 7 yrs to around 3 or 4 yrs.  Contracts like the $100 mil that louchbag Juwan Howard received last decade will become all but non-existent.  Also, owners want to slash their star player's salary by about a third, with the savings to be distributed towards the many exceptions stated above.  Simply put: No more Vince Carter-type contracts.  If a veteran wants max contract money, he has to shape up or he's out in 3 yrs.  For those in the mid-range pay scale, they would be eligible for max money in 3 yrs under the Larry Bird exception if they play well. 
Players' position:  Players want to retain the present 7 yrs, with all the current perks retained.  Star players like Kobe also disagree with the proposed cut in their max salaries so that their teammates' paychecks can be a bit larger, creating a more equitable middle class payroll.


The current collective bargaining agreement that the players' association has with the NBA expires on July 1, 2011.  Without an agreement by the end of the 2010-11 season, there could be a lockout like what we saw in 1999.  LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Carmelo, KG and other union officers stomped their way to the last 90-minute meeting.  NBPA union president Derek Fisher had this to say about the league's proposal: “I think what we made clear today is that where they are is not relevant to where we are. We’re not going to begin where they say begin,”  Fisher said. “I think that was the purpose of going in today, to make sure they understood that their proposal was not the beginning of the conversation.” 
In short, without the dollar numbers in their favor, the players won't even talk.  Well what in effin' tarnation is a bargaining session for if you aren't allowing one side to start at a base figure that they feel is fair?

My opinion:  Retention of 8-figure/year contracts even when a player cannot play anymore?  Paying people like Jermaine O'Neal ($23M/yr) veteran exception-scale salaries?  $23.2 mil a year for T-Mac even though he isn't playing despite being able to do so?  An $86-M payroll (NBA's 3rd highest) for the Knicks, not counting luxury tax costs?  A majority share for players in  Basketball-Related Income even without them putting in a single cent in investment, while owners take all the risk from an economic downturn? What would this all lead to?  More T-Macs, more prima donna bitches like Vince Carter and Allen Iverson.  FYI: the average salary cap (specifically differs from team to team) has increased from $43.9 million in the 2004-05 season to $60.9 million this season.  And the players want more.  More, more, more.  Goddamn it, waive the entire league's rosters if that's what it comes down to!!  We the fans demand better than this.  If we're outraged by Wall St. salaries, this one should be no less of an insult to the hardworking Joe who puts in 8 hrs/day and cuts down his lunch hour just to be able to earn enough to buy these arrogant pricks' jerseys and shoes.  This early in the negotiations, the players' union has already brought in a lawyer who raised the dirty word that used to be linked with Michael Jordan: decertification.  Let's see: that's like an employee saying to his employer, "Boss, you're fired."  Well and good!  Let there be no NBA season in 2010-11 if that's what it takes to pound some sense into these lazy, greedy, overpaid leeches' heads.  Let's see how these bastards run a league of their own making.

**Opinions please, come one come all

For those interested in more specific details of the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement and other rules, click: Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ
Report Abuse
 
2 comments
comment Post A Comment
mightiestmojo says:
02/14/10 10:34AM
Unless you're the NFL players you should be happy you're paid to play a sport and take what you can get. The NFL being different because they are by far the most popular sport. I find this stand by the NBA players ridiculous. A majority share of income to the players? That seems silly considering it is a business. Why not operate like most businesses? People are salaried and if a profit is turned at the end of the year bonuses go out. The long term guaranteed deals are ridiculous. I'm not recommending a deal like the NFL, where it's truly year to year, though I'm not against that but the deals today just cripple teams for so long. It would be nice if a trade were about skill and not shedding salary since a team isn't competing. The NBA is a step above hockey but don't they see what happened there? They had that stupid cancelled year and the sport is barely getting back relevance, here in Dallas anyway, years later.

I'm not really anti-player but the current situation in the country is ridiculous and the NBA players seemed to mirror that the other day. The league is going to lose 400 million this year, not Sure if Stern is BSing but it could be sound, and the employees want more? Shit, most companies lose money the players are worried about their jobs!!!!!!!

bluephinn says:
02/16/10 02:01AM
Nice write up Borat..Agree somewhat with your outlook.As a question though..Is David stern, the Owners or perhaps the broadcasters bound by salary caps within there oragnisations??Um I guess not..Why is that??The matter here remains that a free market dictates what anything is worth..This is the core principle of Capitalism..If I own a restaurant or a small business and my business is declining to the point that it cannot financially sustain itself any longer well then I will be forced to close down..So why is the NBA, NHL or the NFL exempt from this??Fancy walking into any corporation or down Wall St then asking all Brokers,Traders Directors etc`s to have a salary caps..You will be escorted out of there within a second,you may even be locked up..Therefore the market dictates the price players should be paid much like the Citi banks, Lehman Bros and Wall Steeters of this world.Even if it means getting a cut from the cheerleaders..After all without the players there are no cheerleaders or snack sales and is there no team and no team means no fans and no fans means.No sport..The lack of any clear from of transparency within all the sporting mega powers is the reason for the players being deemed as "greedy"..Yet no one really knows how much is being made by the heirachy of these institutions and some of them being already filthy rich.Yet never deemed "greedy"...As a wise men once said...There are three side to every story..my side,your side and the truth..Now unfortunately the vested interests in these dealings will never let us know the truth,so let`s just blame the "greedy" players instead.. After all they are the ones holding the metaphoric guns...Until WE the fan ask for more transarency from the ones running these sports..WE the fan will be paying for it... Whilst those deeming others as greedy enjoy big lunches and vacations to Hawaii in the winter...
Add your response:
Please note that the blogger has the option of reviewing all comments before they are displayed to the public. Your comment may not be published immediately.
 

Profile

User: Borat38
Joined: November 2008
Location:
Team: Portland Trail Blazers
Occupation: Degenerate

Recent Posts

Archive

open2010
open2009
open2008

Categories

Advertisement