PDA

View Full Version : NBA going under?



Midcoasted
03-15-2009, 07:08 PM
Obviously the greed of the players will cause the league to go under. Is JO really worth 20 million this year? Is any player ever worth that much?

Shouldn't the player be happy with a few million a year? I mean a great surgeon who busts his *** saving lives working 12 hour shifts doesn't even make a million a year. When did we decide a basketball player is worth 5-20 million a year? Isn't it just ridiculous?

Let the NBA fail I say. No basketball player is worth that much. I think the maximum salary should be set at like 7 million and the league wouldn't be looking for bailouts from the cities who are struggling to house and feed the poor.

I say no more of this, it's gone too far. The model is broke and the players are making way too much.

Any thoughts?

MiaDragon
03-15-2009, 07:13 PM
wha?

count55
03-15-2009, 07:17 PM
Any thoughts?

None that I can post.

Putnam
03-15-2009, 07:17 PM
There's really no need to say, "Let the NBA fail." Things will sort out.

The current economic crisis is not simply a recession. There will be a lot of devaluation, and pro sports players' salaries will be devalued along with real estate, returns on venture capital, and many other things.

Most pro athletes will be earning less 5 years from now than they do today. They will mostly be OK with it, because they'll realize that they are still making more playing their game than they could make doing anything else. (Seriously, what else is LeBron James good at? Can he cut hair? Operate a forklift? Write articles about Risk Management?) Probably not. But he's a very good basketball player, and there are people who are willing to pay to watch him play. If that's what he's best at, then it is cool that he can make a living doing that.

The process of setting the price of anything is very complex. None of us can just say, "LeBron is worth his salary," or "JO isn't." That is silly and naive. You can't even say how much revenue a star player generates, since you don't know how much of the ticket sales (or commercial endorsement) would have happened without him. People bought shoes even before Jordan endorsed Nike.

NBA players ought to be paid well to play. But if two-thirds of the teams in the the league are in trouble, the players might find it in their self-interest to play for less.

Bball
03-15-2009, 07:21 PM
Most pro athletes will be earning less 5 years from now than they do today. They will mostly be OK with it, because they'll realize that they are still making more playing their game than they could make doing anything else. (Seriously, what else is LeBron James good at? Can he cut hair? Operate a forklift? Write articles about Risk Management?)

This will all sort out.

Lebron can play for the Browns... or continue to pursue that legal career. Haven't you been watching his commercials?

ReginaldWayne
03-15-2009, 07:21 PM
I suppose you dont watch baseball?

Kemo
03-15-2009, 07:48 PM
Obviously the greed of the players will cause the league to go under. Is JO really worth 20 million this year? Is any player ever worth that much?

Shouldn't the player be happy with a few million a year? I mean a great surgeon who busts his *** saving lives working 12 hour shifts doesn't even make a million a year. When did we decide a basketball player is worth 5-20 million a year? Isn't it just ridiculous?

Let the NBA fail I say. No basketball player is worth that much. I think the maximum salary should be set at like 7 million and the league wouldn't be looking for bailouts from the cities who are struggling to house and feed the poor.

I say no more of this, it's gone too far. The model is broke and the players are making way too much.

Any thoughts?


I TOTALLY AGREE

It's ridiculous really .. I also think a players contract should have incentives worked into it where they can actually make more depending on their play during the season.. and if they get to playoffs, win playoffs , and etc..
In turn you will see more competitiveness and EARNING of that contract by each player

No more of these multi million dollar contracts just given out freely ..

Like I said, I wholeheartedly agree.. and it needs to extend to all pro sports that are paying these players outrageous amounts of money ..

I could live off of one year of Granger's salary for the rest of my life !!
Something is wrong with this picture ..lol

idioteque
03-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Obviously the greed of the players will cause the league to go under. Is JO really worth 20 million this year? Is any player ever worth that much?


No.

Personally I think that athletes are over glorified in the media. But their salaries have little do to with the greed of the players.

Read Putnam's post.

YoSoyIndy
03-15-2009, 09:12 PM
I TOTALLY AGREE

It's ridiculous really .. I also think a players contract should have incentives worked into it where they can actually make more depending on their play during the season.. and if they get to playoffs, win playoffs , and etc..
In turn you will see more competitiveness and EARNING of that contract by each player

No more of these multi million dollar contracts just given out freely ..

Like I said, I wholeheartedly agree.. and it needs to extend to all pro sports that are paying these players outrageous amounts of money ..

I could live off of one year of Granger's salary for the rest of my life !!
Something is wrong with this picture ..lol

A lot of players have incentives in their contract. It's a bad move unless it's based on team performance (i.e., standings), because you never want a player worrying about getting another point or rebound when he should be focusing on the right decision to help his team win.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with a profession athlete making millions of dollars. They are doing something that only a small percent can do and are getting people to pay a lot of money to see them. Obviously the CBA needs to be adjusted, but pro athletes should still be paid well.

We are a capitalist society. You have the same opportunity to make millions as anyone else, so don't hate on someone once they get the money, especially if they earned it -- and guys like Danny Granger have earned it.

BlueNGold
03-15-2009, 09:31 PM
A lot of players have incentives in their contract. It's a bad move unless it's based on team performance (i.e., standings), because you never want a player worrying about getting another point or rebound when he should be focusing on the right decision to help his team win.

Generally speaking, I have no problem with a profession athlete making millions of dollars. They are doing something that only a small percent can do and are getting people to pay a lot of money to see them. Obviously the CBA needs to be adjusted, but pro athletes should still be paid well.

We are a capitalist society. You have the same opportunity to make millions as anyone else, so don't hate on someone once they get the money, especially if they earned it -- and guys like Danny Granger have earned it.

You make some great points. Professional athletes are the top .0001% of their profession. They truly deserve to be paid whatever their fans will pay. That does not include unwilling tax payers though. Again, great points but I must say I truly doubt the bolded part.

Basketball Fan
03-15-2009, 10:19 PM
No wonder the brawl happened in Detroit fans really are bitter about how much athletes make.

And while I do understand that professional sports are big business. Considering how much owners make off of these players and the fans I say I'm not bothered by how much they make. Although at the same time JO isn't worth his salary and its not just because he's an NBA player but because he's inconsistent as an NBA player and often injured.

Putting that aside Putnam said it better than I could.

I'm not going to fault an NBA player for trying to make as much money as they can while they can if I am given that option I'd take it too saying otherwise would be hypocritical.

Besides what about the teachers who are far more underpaid than doctors are.

SycamoreKen
03-15-2009, 10:38 PM
No wonder the brawl happened in Detroit fans really are bitter about how much athletes make.

And while I do understand that professional sports are big business. Considering how much owners make off of these players and the fans I say I'm not bothered by how much they make. Although at the same time JO isn't worth his salary and its not just because he's an NBA player but because he's inconsistent as an NBA player and often injured.

Putting that aside Putnam said it better than I could.

I'm not going to fault an NBA player for trying to make as much money as they can while they can if I am given that option I'd take it too saying otherwise would be hypocritical.

Besides what about the teachers who are far more underpaid than doctors are.

The biggest problem is, and i would say that it is the same in every league, NFL included, a large number of them are not making money. I think the leagues will contract before completely folding.

GrangerRanger
03-15-2009, 10:42 PM
As it has been stated. Professional players in these leagues are the best at what they do. The best doctor gets paid more, the best lawyer gets the big cases (more money), and the best coach gets the best job (more money). Throughout any profession, whoever works his tail off and is the best, gets the most. I don't see what's wrong with NBA players getting that much money.

Bball
03-15-2009, 10:52 PM
In a perfect world a potential team owner would buy the rights to a new team, research cities where he thinks they could be successful and where he doesn't step on another team's franchise rights, buy some land in that city, build an arena based on his business model and projections, and then start selling tickets.

Notice what is missing? No, not bidding a concessions contract with a vendor...I mean bigger than that- No taxpayer subsidies involved in the team thus skewing the bottom line. The business will sink or swim based on the owner and his management team's savvy and the business model of the NBA. Player salaries will be tied to market forces.

Truthfully, that is how the NBA should mandate it be handled but they won't do that because it puts a premium on their own business model.

In an almost perfect world a city would build the arena, pay all utilities...etc..., retain naming rights for the arena, retain all profit/risk on the events, and rent the facility to NBA teams during their season and preseason and times of need. And this wouldn't be 1.00, it would be at a reasonable MARKET rate. Once again, meaning the team would need to sink or swim financially based on its own business model and that of the NBA.

Anything other than that is basically a burden that should not be allowed because it's an intermingling of public funds and private interests that has an endgame that isn't pretty for the taxpayers. Even the 2nd scenario has pitfalls because a team can then hold a city/state hostage when they want a new arena and that desire for a new arena need not be tied to economic realities because it isn't the team owner's money being spent (or is only a minor part of it).

If pro sport teams had to build their own stadiums and local governments were banned from putting public monies into the equation do you think we'd see the palaces we are seeing? Would LOS still have a retractable roof if Irsay had to foot the bill 100%? Would teams playing in 15-20 year old stadiums be on the demolition block if their replacement was 100% the responsibility of the owners and not taxpayers?

These questions (I believe) are rhetorical questions and we all know the answer. And when you boil it down to that, it becomes clear that taxpayer dollars are being used in ways that are wrong. These stadiums aren't being built based on realistic designs and schedules because it is people spending other people's money that are making the decisions... and they are being made under duress of veiled threat of the team moving if the owner's wishes aren't catered to.

--
On the subject of salaries-
If it was based on ticket sales and TV contracts then whatever it works out to be makes sense. They are based on a TV contract that was overbid and likely won't be raising again and a business model propped up by taxpayer dollars. And even then, they are still too high and too restrictive and teams are hurting from them.

Kemo
03-15-2009, 11:21 PM
I am not saying these players don't earn it ..
But when the organizations these same players play for are about to lose their collective a$$es, there is a problem..

It's just like Guide here in Anderson , they were paying out large hourly wages to plant workers, and the workers got spoiled on making the good money , then when the plant starts cutting jobs (because low sales and the money starts drying up) , and putting pressure on the workers... The union then wonders how this happened? lol... Because when when Guide isn't able to continue operating... they shut down... just as they did in Anderson..

Same with the different teams and the nba , if they can't keep paying these outrageous millions and still stay in business as normal, then something has to give...

I'll give you a hint.... It won't be the nba or the teams ..lol

So ultimately something is gonna have to be addressed with the players union and untill our economy picks up , there are gonna have to be some major concessions for the nba to be able to stay afloat, thus keeping these same players in a job..

Regardless these players would still be living better than 90% of us ever could imagine..


We may see a time come, where the players will have to save the nba with the economy as bad as it's becoming .

Midcoasted
03-15-2009, 11:37 PM
The top .00001% of any profession makes more than a million or two a year. What other profession can you be gauranteed 20 million a year in? Baseball and that's it?

Obviously I don't think that NBA players shouldn't earn a fair dollar, that is why I said 7 million should be the max, and 1-2 million would be the average. I've worked 10 years of my life already and haven't even earned a 100,000 dollars. I'm always the best in whatever I do. I always get complimented that I'm a good worker, one of the best they have.

Why are cities giving so much to these teams already? I don't want the Pacers or the league to fail that is why I'm writing a concerned post. If these 300 million dollar franchises are running in red ink and looking for us to bail them out then there is a problem. If Indiana moves over this greed, whether it is the owners, the executives, the players, or the agents, I will never watch NBA basketball again.

Can anyone tell me how much our player/executive payroll is each year? Gotta be more than 100 million. You tellin me trimming 30 million off of that and making a profit in the future is going to send these people to the poor houses? Market value is way to inflated. A player making 2 million now should be happy with a million and a half, and someone making 10 should be happy with 7. And we could also eliminate some of the waste in the front office.

switch
03-15-2009, 11:50 PM
What came first; the chicken or the egg?

Can we really say the players are being greedy for accepting money that was offered to them? I agree that they make too much money and their salaries are hurting the NBA economically, but it is not the players fault for signing multi-million dollar contracts.

GMs and owners overvalue players and offer them too much money. Instead of calling JO and others greedy, we should be calling FOs foolish for offering contracts worth too much money or that last too many years. Players only sign contracts, they don't write them, so they deserve to get what was agreed on.

Players do indeed make too much money, but it is because TPTB in the NBA offered them that money. If teams decided to offer players less money we would not need threads such as this one. If any of us were offered millions to play ball I'm sure we would all accept without hesitation, regardless of weather or not we were worth it.

Another thought in defense of the players:
JO is not the player he used to be because he was injured while fulfilling the duties of his contract. Hypothetical situation: lets say that you were a construction worker and you sign a seven year contract for a job that requires you to go up and down laders. One day you slip and fall off of the lader, hurt your back, and can no longer go up and down laders, but you can still work on other projects. Wouldn't you still expect to get the pay that was agreed on when the construction company hired you? Or is it greedy to expect that?

Taterhead
03-15-2009, 11:50 PM
They have just gotten to be a huge albatross. The extreme extravagance of the league has caused the cost of attending a game to skyrocket right out of the average mans price range. Less and less people can afford to go when they need more people to go to offset these costs. It has reached the breaking point. Fortunately I think the economy is going to force the league to change.

I would expect a system patterned after the NFL at the next collective bargaining agreement. The players have completely run out of leverage. Everybody talks like just throwing more money at the problem is the answer. But that really is the problem.

I don't think the league has reached the point where it'll have to fold altogether. But if they don't do something this time it will the next time. You can't expect the best of times to keep going forever. You have to plan to sustain the worst of them.

Kemo
03-16-2009, 12:28 AM
I don't really see anyone faulting the players.. I don't .. Lemme make that clear..

But yes, at the next CBA some changes need to occur for the NBA to stay afloat..

Roaming Gnome
03-16-2009, 12:33 AM
What came first; the chicken or the egg?

Can we really say the players are being greedy for accepting money that was offered to them? I agree that they make too much money and their salaries are hurting the NBA economically, but it is not the players fault for signing multi-million dollar contracts.

GMs and owners overvalue players and offer them too much money. Instead of calling JO and others greedy, we should be calling FOs foolish for offering contracts worth too much money or that last too many years. Players only sign contracts, they don't write them, so they deserve to get what was agreed on.

Players do indeed make too much money, but it is because TPTB in the NBA offered them that money. If teams decided to offer players less money we would not need threads such as this one. If any of us were offered millions to play ball I'm sure we would all accept without hesitation, regardless of weather or not we were worth it.

Another thought in defense of the players:
JO is not the player he used to be because he was injured while fulfilling the duties of his contract. Hypothetical situation: lets say that you were a construction worker and you sign a seven year contract for a job that requires you to go up and down laders. One day you slip and fall off of the lader, hurt your back, and can no longer go up and down laders, but you can still work on other projects. Wouldn't you still expect to get the pay that was agreed on when the construction company hired you? Or is it greedy to expect that?

My God, switch... You are my friggin' hero. I sat here about 20 minutes trying to come up with what you just said.

In the end, the only salary structure that the players and the union have anything to do with is the minimum salaries. Everything else is up to the owners. Heck, about 12 or 14 years ago... The Players actually agreed to a salary maximum before the lock-out negotiations of '98?. Heck, now that I think about it.... The Salary Cap and Luxary Tax are all things mandated by ownership to save them from themselves. What else do you expect the players to give up?


It's easy to clown the Clippers, but Donald Sterling's pen always writes in "black ink". Shouldn't more owners be like him to keep player salaries "in line"?

Big Smooth
03-16-2009, 01:20 AM
All I know is if my own employer decided to offer me a salary for way more than I was truly worth I would not hesitate for one second to take the money. :D

As long as the teams are able and willing to pay out huge contracts in professional sports, how can you blame a player for not wanting to get his fair market value? Anybody working at any profession should want to be paid their fair value based on the job market regardless of whether we are talking thousands or millions.

Bball
03-16-2009, 01:43 AM
I don't fault the players either. The business model is just built on shaky ground and that is what has allowed owners and managers to overspend until the bubble burst. But as someone said on here somewhere, you have to be prudent and base those wages on a sustainable model... not just base it on a popularity bubble that needed taxpayer funds and packed arenas at high ticket prices AND strong corporate sponsorship to maintain.

Midcoasted
03-16-2009, 03:10 AM
What came first; the chicken or the egg?

Can we really say the players are being greedy for accepting money that was offered to them? I agree that they make too much money and their salaries are hurting the NBA economically, but it is not the players fault for signing multi-million dollar contracts.

GMs and owners overvalue players and offer them too much money. Instead of calling JO and others greedy, we should be calling FOs foolish for offering contracts worth too much money or that last too many years. Players only sign contracts, they don't write them, so they deserve to get what was agreed on.

Players do indeed make too much money, but it is because TPTB in the NBA offered them that money. If teams decided to offer players less money we would not need threads such as this one. If any of us were offered millions to play ball I'm sure we would all accept without hesitation, regardless of weather or not we were worth it.

Another thought in defense of the players:
JO is not the player he used to be because he was injured while fulfilling the duties of his contract. Hypothetical situation: lets say that you were a construction worker and you sign a seven year contract for a job that requires you to go up and down laders. One day you slip and fall off of the lader, hurt your back, and can no longer go up and down laders, but you can still work on other projects. Wouldn't you still expect to get the pay that was agreed on when the construction company hired you? Or is it greedy to expect that?

I'd hate to break it to you but in real life here in the real world if you hurt your back and you can't work you'll be fighting a disability/workmans comp claim for the next three years and you may not even get it. Also you won't be making near as much as you did.

Maybe I shouldn't have pinned it on the players so blatantly, but it does have to do with greed of agents players FOs, the whole nine yards. This country is broke as a whole. You got banks getting bailed out because they lured people to sub-prime loans and then jacked their rates to levels there was no way they could afford, and then want a hand out to save their *** from the government. Now you got credit card companies dropping limits lower than balances to get penalties and justify jacking the interest rates higher, and there is another bubble waiting to pop. Corporate greed in America in general has us on our knees and the team with the most lucrative deal in the league can't even make a profit the year they make it to the NBA Finals. Anyone think this picture is messed up?

If all franchises took the Clipper's model we would have a sub-par league. I again wish I could take back the player's greed thing, but what's done is done. They do play somewhat into the overall greed picture. How many times does a player take a pay-cut to stay in a system he thrives in? Rarely and a few times it has destroyed careers. So not all players are greedy, but some players are driven by the greed of fortune and fame.

If it was me I would stay where I would thrive and still be a multi-millionaire, just not as multi I guess. I would live a better life still than most would dream. Then again if I was good enough I'd be playing for the Pacers for the league minimum and still make more in a year then I could hope for in a decade. I'm just a homer like that though.:laugh:

Kstat
03-16-2009, 05:35 AM
People who judge others based on the salaries they legally made in a capitalist society sicken me.

These players work every bit as hard at their craft as the average surgeon. Becuase the surgeon saves lives and the players are entertainers does not give anybody the right to put them down for making the money they do.

Kstat
03-16-2009, 05:38 AM
If it was me I would stay where I would thrive and still be a multi-millionaire, just not as multi I guess. I would live a better life still than most would dream. Then again if I was good enough I'd be playing for the Pacers for the league minimum and still make more in a year then I could hope for in a decade. I'm just a homer like that though.:laugh:

Stop right there.

YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU WOULD DO, BECAUSE YOU AREN'T IN THEIR SHOES.

I really, really hate it when people say "if I was an NBA player, I'd be happy with a million dollars.."

Guess what? You don't know that, because nobody has ever made you that offer. Nobody's offered you a million dollars to go to work, or ten million or fifty million, so get off your moral high horse and stop pretending that you have any freaking clue what these pressure players go through, or what you would do in their shoes.

These players have agents, managers, handlers, assistants, trainers, personal chefs, family to take care of, and they are taxed up the ***. They see a small fraction of that million dollars after everyone has had their cut.

Does the leftovers still allow them to live lavishly? Of course. But making that much money also means you need to spend a lot to keep yourself afloat.

Pacersfan46
03-16-2009, 06:05 AM
These players have agents, managers, handlers, assistants, trainers, personal chefs, family to take care of, and they are taxed up the ***. They see a small fraction of that million dollars after everyone has had their cut.

Agreed. I've heard that after agent fee's, and taxes a player only see's roughly 50% of what their contract is worth. This doesn't count anything except taxes and an agent. I'm sure there's plenty more that needs to be paid beyond that.

That's another angle about the Pacers moving .... how many millions of dollars does the city/state lose in just taxing Pacers players if the team moves? Hmph.

-- Steve --

RWB
03-16-2009, 08:00 AM
That's another angle about the Pacers moving .... how many millions of dollars does the city/state lose in just taxing Pacers players if the team moves? Hmph.
-- Steve --

Probably nothing since they can hire the best agents, cpas and lawyers to find the loopholes to get out of paying taxes. Shoot they probably get a decent refund. :devil: I've heard of this strange animal 'refund' but haven't seen one in years.

DGPR
03-16-2009, 08:07 AM
Stop right there.

YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU WOULD DO, BECAUSE YOU AREN'T IN THEIR SHOES.

I really, really hate it when people say "if I was an NBA player, I'd be happy with a million dollars.."

Guess what? You don't know that, because nobody has ever made you that offer. Nobody's offered you a million dollars to go to work, or ten million or fifty million, so get off your moral high horse and stop pretending that you have any freaking clue what these pressure players go through, or what you would do in their shoes.

These players have agents, managers, handlers, assistants, trainers, personal chefs, family to take care of, and they are taxed up the ***. They see a small fraction of that million dollars after everyone has had their cut.

Does the leftovers still allow them to live lavishly? Of course. But making that much money also means you need to spend a lot to keep yourself afloat.

Don't forget child support payments too.

ABADays
03-16-2009, 08:38 AM
As it has been stated. Professional players in these leagues are the best at what they do. The best doctor gets paid more, the best lawyer gets the big cases (more money), and the best coach gets the best job (more money). Throughout any profession, whoever works his tail off and is the best, gets the most. I don't see what's wrong with NBA players getting that much money.

And don't forget to include all those CEO's getting multi-million dollar bonuses for companies that have failed miserably.

naptownmenace
03-16-2009, 09:08 AM
The top .00001% of any profession makes more than a million or two a year. What other profession can you be gauranteed 20 million a year in? Baseball and that's it?

The top entertainers and actors make double-digit millions a year as well. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Jim Carrey, and Will Smith all make about $20 million dollars per movie so if they make more than one film a year (and they have at different times in their careers) they've made more than 20 mill a year.

Oprah and Martha Stewart are worth billions. Then there's television network CEOs, oil barons, software moguls like Bill Gates and Paul Allen that make a ridiculous amount of money every year because they are the best at what they do and there is a great demand for the services, goods, or entertainment that they provide.

Because of the economy, we might see all these numbers go down a bit for NBA players. However, the numbers show that consumers are turning out to the theaters to watch movies more this year than last - despite the rising cost of ticket prices. So entertainers will continue to make a lot of jack this year despite the fact that the big movie production companies are struggling. Does that bother you as much as the NBA player's salaries situation?

naptownmenace
03-16-2009, 09:12 AM
People who judge others based on the salaries they legally made in a capitalist society sicken me.

These players work every bit as hard at their craft as the average surgeon. Becuase the surgeon saves lives and the players are entertainers does not give anybody the right to put them down for making the money they do.

Surgeons often make mistakes that kill people too. Other than Jayson Williams, that doesn't usually happen with NBA players. ;)

Roaming Gnome
03-16-2009, 09:13 AM
I'd hate to break it to you but in real life here in the real world if you hurt your back and you can't work you'll be fighting a disability/workmans comp claim for the next three years and you may not even get it. Also you won't be making near as much as you did.


Actually, if you have an employment contract "in the real world" and you hurt yourself... It tosses everything you just said right out the window. Not everyone in this world works on an hourly basis.

Unclebuck
03-16-2009, 09:19 AM
My honest response to this thread or the idea of the thread that no player is worth such and such money. I think it would be easy to prove that Lebron is worth a whole lot more than his salary. He basically saved the Cavs and has more than doubled their team revenues.

So on merit, he is way, way underpaid

Other than that, I should just stay out of this. except to way, who are we to say someone can't make over a certain amount of money. Would you like someone else to decide how much $$ you should be able to make?

No the NBA isn't going under

OakMoses
03-16-2009, 09:22 AM
I think Bball's right on with his ideas about the NBA's business model being horribly flawed. There are some serious problems with the NBA that are probably not even going to be addressed as they try and retrench.

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Player salaries need to be directly tied to revenue. If the NBA has a crappy year fiscally, player salaries need to be reduced. I'm not sure how this would work logistically as far as weekly paychecks go, but I'm sure something could be figured out.

2. All sports franchises need to have complete transparency in their accounting practices. I'm not sure you could require this if the team is not accepting public money. I think fans, journalists, players, etc. need to know exactly where the organization's money is going. If the books are transparent, I think a lot of the rancor that exists between players and owners might go away if the owners can prove that they're truly losing money.

3. Ticket prices are too high.

4. The NBA season (both regular season and playoffs) is too long. A shorter season is going to improve the quality of the product.

5. There are too many teams. Fewer teams with a greater consolidation of talent would increase parity and improve the product.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm done typing now.

OakMoses
03-16-2009, 09:24 AM
Would you like someone else to decide how much $$ you should be able to make?


As a teacher, I pretty much do allow others to decide exactly how much I make.

idioteque
03-16-2009, 09:27 AM
I'd hate to break it to you but in real life here in the real world if you hurt your back and you can't work you'll be fighting a disability/workmans comp claim for the next three years and you may not even get it. Also you won't be making near as much as you did.

Maybe I shouldn't have pinned it on the players so blatantly, but it does have to do with greed of agents players FOs, the whole nine yards. This country is broke as a whole. You got banks getting bailed out because they lured people to sub-prime loans and then jacked their rates to levels there was no way they could afford, and then want a hand out to save their *** from the government. Now you got credit card companies dropping limits lower than balances to get penalties and justify jacking the interest rates higher, and there is another bubble waiting to pop. Corporate greed in America in general has us on our knees and the team with the most lucrative deal in the league can't even make a profit the year they make it to the NBA Finals. Anyone think this picture is messed up?

If all franchises took the Clipper's model we would have a sub-par league. I again wish I could take back the player's greed thing, but what's done is done. They do play somewhat into the overall greed picture. How many times does a player take a pay-cut to stay in a system he thrives in? Rarely and a few times it has destroyed careers. So not all players are greedy, but some players are driven by the greed of fortune and fame.

If it was me I would stay where I would thrive and still be a multi-millionaire, just not as multi I guess. I would live a better life still than most would dream. Then again if I was good enough I'd be playing for the Pacers for the league minimum and still make more in a year then I could hope for in a decade. I'm just a homer like that though.:laugh:

Let me say it again: The salaries that the players make have basically nothing to do with the players themselves OR their agents. It doesn't even have a whole lot to do with the people in the front office in many situations. Anyway why would anyone, in this economy you lament about, take a paycut? I know I wouldn't. Also remember many of these players come from pretty tough backgrounds and are often taking care of a good portion of their families with their salaries. Say what you will about JT, but he provided for his relatives after he made his money.

Unclebuck
03-16-2009, 10:37 AM
As a teacher, I pretty much do allow others to decide exactly how much I make.

OK, let me re-phrase. Do you want someone who knows very little about what you actually do to decide how much is too much.

My point which I didn't make very well, - is who decides who makes what. In the NBA the PA and the NBA collective bargain to set the parameters. Who are we to say - no that is all wrong.

Would you like me to say whatever your teachers union collectively bargained for you was too much??

Naptown_Seth
03-16-2009, 10:41 AM
I feel like I signed up for the Random Rant of the Day emailer.

Let's follow it up with "These kids today and their tattoos, they'll never be able to get jobs and it's not like they want to work anyway."


It's called life, it'll work out. The NBA isn't going to ask for tax dollars to bail out payrolls. Even the Pacers are just handing back control of a public facility, not asking for money to pay TJ. And if they do then we can certainly say no, or fire that elected official that tries to say yes.


What I want to know is what did U2 and The Beatles ever do to deserve all that money. Tell me how Mark Cuban made the world a better place while you are at it, and he's worth more than his entire roster.

"Lighten up, Francis."

Pacersfan46
03-16-2009, 10:42 AM
Probably nothing since they can hire the best agents, cpas and lawyers to find the loopholes to get out of paying taxes. Shoot they probably get a decent refund. :devil: I've heard of this strange animal 'refund' but haven't seen one in years.

.... it doesn't matter how good the people are that they hire, their check when they get paid is going to get taxed ....

-- Steve --

Unclebuck
03-16-2009, 10:43 AM
I think Bball's right on with his ideas about the NBA's business model being horribly flawed. There are some serious problems with the NBA that are probably not even going to be addressed as they try and retrench.

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Player salaries need to be directly tied to revenue. If the NBA has a crappy year fiscally, player salaries need to be reduced. I'm not sure how this would work logistically as far as weekly paychecks go, but I'm sure something could be figured out.




That is exactly what they do in the NBA and exactly how the salary cap is set and luxury tax is figured. Gross revenues are determined every July 1st and the players get a certain % (I think it might be 60%) . If the NBA has a crappy year then the salary cap will go down (which it might do for the first time this summer - for next year) the following year. Sure it doesn't change the current contracts of any players, but it does hurt teams ability to sign new players.

count55
03-16-2009, 10:47 AM
That is exactly what they do in the NBA and exactly how the salary cap is set and luxury tax is figured. Gross revenues are determined every July 1st and the players get a certain % (I think it might be 60%) . If the NBA has a crappy year then the salary cap will go down (which it might do for the first time this summer - for next year) the following year. Sure it doesn't change the current contracts of any players, but it does hurt teams ability to sign new players.

57%

Naptown_Seth
03-16-2009, 10:55 AM
BTW, all finger pointing needs to go right back at ourselves. SOCIETY sets the standards.

If teaching were honestly regarded with the same importance as sports you would see towns and cities fighting for the top teachers, pay would increase in the battle until the top HS math teacher made $10m per year.

Proof - check the bidding for top Texas HS football coaches, compare to states where HS football is less important.


Society and businesses make mistakes, they pay way too much for things of very little true value. Forget athletes, what about marketing and ad people compared to teachers or doctors. Should they be pulling in the $150K just to make you think one brand of bread is better than the other even if it isn't? How is that helpful to society?

The reason it goes like this is because of capitalism, but not just capitalism. Capitalism with dumb consumers who don't give a flying F about being informed or being misled. So the crap works and the crap makers continue to get paid.

Capitalism always fails at the consumer level. It assumes society will make the best choices for itself and that all companies will follow the basic rules of "make a better product to make more money". People don't and they don't demand the best product above all other concerns, so the money flows the way we see it now instead.


The day you start tuning in more to the Mathlympics than the NBA Finals is the day teachers will start getting paid more than athletes.

Naptown_Seth
03-16-2009, 11:03 AM
There are some serious problems with Hollywood that are probably not even going to be addressed as they try and retrench.

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Actors' salaries need to be directly tied to revenue. If his film does poorly his salary need to be reduced.
(it works this way which is why "has beens" get paid less, there is a reaction delay but the trend still follows results...btw, how much does Antonio Davis earn these days, ie it's already the same in the NBA)


2. All studios need to have complete transparency in their accounting practices.
(good luck on that)

3. Ticket prices are too high.
(check, AMC single seat on a Friday night 9.50, Pacers game 5.00)

4. The film season is too long. A shorter season is going to improve the quality of the product.
(Have you seen the stuff that gets released in JAN-FEB and SEPT-OCT)

5. There are too many films. Fewer films with a greater consolidation of talent would increase parity and improve the product.
(hmmm, Heaven's Gate called...)

See, it's all the same. You can run through ANY entertainment business where people earn a lot and see similar issues. Probably any business period.

Did anyone really get to look at Enron's books before it was too late?

BillS
03-16-2009, 11:37 AM
That is exactly what they do in the NBA and exactly how the salary cap is set and luxury tax is figured. Gross revenues are determined every July 1st and the players get a certain % (I think it might be 60%) . If the NBA has a crappy year then the salary cap will go down (which it might do for the first time this summer - for next year) the following year. Sure it doesn't change the current contracts of any players, but it does hurt teams ability to sign new players.

The problem with that model even is that since the existing contracts don't go away you'll end up with many owners suddenly paying the luxury tax with no way to get out from under it. That completely undermines the free agent market for anyone but the top-level players in future but does nothing for the current year.

I would love to hear someone realistic tell me whether the agents and Players' Association have been talking about this situation. In particular, do they view guaranteed contracts as a deal-breaker or a valid negotiating point?

count55
03-16-2009, 11:44 AM
57%

I'm sorry...it's 51%.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q10

ajbry
03-16-2009, 12:03 PM
BTW, all finger pointing needs to go right back at ourselves. SOCIETY sets the standards.

If teaching were honestly regarded with the same importance as sports you would see towns and cities fighting for the top teachers, pay would increase in the battle until the top HS math teacher made $10m per year.

Proof - check the bidding for top Texas HS football coaches, compare to states where HS football is less important.


Society and businesses make mistakes, they pay way too much for things of very little true value. Forget athletes, what about marketing and ad people compared to teachers or doctors. Should they be pulling in the $150K just to make you think one brand of bread is better than the other even if it isn't? How is that helpful to society?

The reason it goes like this is because of capitalism, but not just capitalism. Capitalism with dumb consumers who don't give a flying F about being informed or being misled. So the crap works and the crap makers continue to get paid.

Capitalism always fails at the consumer level. It assumes society will make the best choices for itself and that all companies will follow the basic rules of "make a better product to make more money". People don't and they don't demand the best product above all other concerns, so the money flows the way we see it now instead.


The day you start tuning in more to the Mathlympics than the NBA Finals is the day teachers will start getting paid more than athletes.

Finally.

I don't even care about the whole 'elite' aspect of pro athletes relative to other 'elite' professionals in different areas. The fact is that the NBA is in the private sector and is dependent on voluntary fan revenue that in turn provides for its key components to get paid as they do. It's very simple.

Unclebuck
03-16-2009, 12:22 PM
The problem with that model even is that since the existing contracts don't go away you'll end up with many owners suddenly paying the luxury tax with no way to get out from under it. That completely undermines the free agent market for anyone but the top-level players in future but does nothing for the current year.

I would love to hear someone realistic tell me whether the agents and Players' Association have been talking about this situation. In particular, do they view guaranteed contracts as a deal-breaker or a valid negotiating point?

My best guess and it is only a guess - is that the players association will give up guaranteed contracts over their dead bodies. So that is a deal breaker. My guess is the mid-level exeption will be ended or changed a great deal and I would expect the maximum length of guaranteed contracts to go down again.

I read an article last week or maybe a week earlier that some owners - or maybe it wsas former super-agent Favid Falk who was saying what he thinks the owners want is to change the mid-level exemption - and that the owners believe it isn't the Lebron James contract that is killing the leagie but it is the midlevel players making 4-6 million per year to be a 7th man

count55
03-16-2009, 12:28 PM
My best guess and it is only a guess - is that the players association will give up guaranteed contracts over their dead bodies. So that is a deal breaker. My guess is the mid-level exeption will be ended or changed a great deal and I would expect the maximum length of guaranteed contracts to go down again.

I read an article last week or maybe a week earlier that some owners - or maybe it wsas former super-agent Wolf who was saying what he thinks the owners want is to change the mid-level exemption - and that the owners believe it isn't the Lebron James contract that is killing the leagie but it is the midlevel players making 4-6 million per year to be a 7th man

The owners will be looking for an NFL-style salary structure, with signing bonuses replacing the guarantees. (If you look at the way NFL contracts are structured, what they're doing is basically doing the "buy-out" up front.) The Players will resist, and it's difficult to tell how successful they'll be.

If I were to guess, I think you'll see contract lengths shortened to three years for other free agents, four for your own. The maxes may stay the same or increase, and, as Buck says, the MLE may go way entirely.

I'm not convinced that will be enough to make it viable for small market teams.

ChicagoJ
03-16-2009, 01:15 PM
All I know is if my own employer decided to offer me a salary for way more than I was truly worth I would not hesitate for one second to take the money. :D

I used to say that. But during the previous recession (not the current one), the people around me that were at the biggest risk of losing their jobs were the ones that were "overpaid." Sure, they were still contributing, just not as much as thier compensation. You didn't want to be at the bottom of the performace ladder, but it was worse to be at the top of the compensation ladder.

I no longer desire to be overpaid. Of couse, I don't want to be underpaid either. Just pay me what I'm worth...

This sentiment matches up to pro sports pretty well, I believe. There are obvious examples of payers grossly overpaid because they don't do anything. But more often, they are fractionally overpaid and so are several of their teammates, and it all adds up to insanity.

Country Boy
03-16-2009, 02:12 PM
Finally.

I don't even care about the whole 'elite' aspect of pro athletes relative to other 'elite' professionals in different areas. The fact is that the NBA is in the private sector and is dependent on voluntary fan revenue that in turn provides for its key components to get paid as they do. It's very simple.

Wrong! Tax payers money go to build these arenas through direct taxes and indirect tax abatements. They are only private enterprise in the minds of fans such as you and UB.

BillS
03-16-2009, 02:30 PM
Wrong! Tax payers money go to build these arenas through direct taxes and indirect tax abatements. They are only private enterprise in the minds of fans such as you and UB.

Ahh. So trucking companies are public enterprise because taxpayer money goes to build and maintain roads. Airlines are publicly owned because airports are built by municipalities, not private companies. Performers who give concerts in government-built arenas are also government employees because taxes finance the building of world-class arts and entertainment venues.

Unclebuck
03-16-2009, 02:36 PM
Wrong! Tax payers money go to build these arenas through direct taxes and indirect tax abatements. They are only private enterprise in the minds of fans such as you and UB.

I'll let BillS make the other point. But one thing we need to keep in mind as Able posted - of the total cost of the Fieldhouse $183M. Only $79 M was from the city - the tax-payers. Pacers paid $57M and the rest came from private money.


Seems to me what is happening in the general public is the Pacers are getting blamed for the cost of the Colts new building. I'm sure if you took a poll of the citizens of Indy and asked if any private money went to the building of the Fieldhouse - most would say no and would be quite surprised by the figures

able
03-16-2009, 02:42 PM
I'll let BillS make the other point. But one thing we need to keep in mind as Able posted of the total cost of the Fieldhouse $183M. Only $79 M was from the city, was from the tax-payers. Pacers paid $57M and the rest came from private money.

Add to that the 79 mio was a loan, nothing else, to be paid back over 20 years.

no freebees here

Roaming Gnome
03-16-2009, 03:55 PM
Funny thing how everyone gets up in arms about public money in regards to the Pacers, but wanna know something that really grinds my gears. How about public money to Hewlett Packard here in Indianapolis. Under normal circumstances... That is fine because HP would normally hire local folks and it's a win/win.

But, what HP does here in Indy is.... They don't hire permanent employees. They bring in temps to man 90% of their operation. Before I became a skilled tradesman, I use to work as a temp. If you are a temp, it is nearly impossible to secure an apartment, let alone a home. You can forget trying to buy a car if your employer is a "temp agency". Since then, I have come to find that there are a lot of companies that do this. It's one thing to take our tax money, but to do this and not offer the jobs promised to is purely infuriating.

What I'm getting at is, there are a lot of private businesses here locally that takes public money whether it is in the form of substantial tax abatements like at HP, or the city constructing the facility like the albatross that I live behind known as the United Airlines Maintenance Facility.

Oh, by the way.... United Airlines left the city high and dry when they left. Where was all the rage when that went down? That is a facility that the city ran without a tenant for a while. Now, there is a tenant there, but the current tenant only untilizes about 50% of the facility which is still not enough to cover the cost to the city.

OakMoses
03-16-2009, 04:14 PM
That is exactly what they do in the NBA and exactly how the salary cap is set and luxury tax is figured. Gross revenues are determined every July 1st and the players get a certain % (I think it might be 60%) . If the NBA has a crappy year then the salary cap will go down (which it might do for the first time this summer - for next year) the following year. Sure it doesn't change the current contracts of any players, but it does hurt teams ability to sign new players.

That's part of the point. When the NBA has a terrible year, it doesn't affect anybody who's on a longterm contract. It just hurts the teams that those guys play for. Take Granger for example. If we signed him to a contract for 16% of the salary cap, rather than $10 million/year, then his salary fluctuates with the league's revenue. If the league does well, he gets a raise. If it does poorly, it goes down. Right now you have a situation where the salary cap is going to go down while any player signed to a long term contract gets a raise. All that does is hurt teams and players who are unlucky enough to be FA's this offseason.

Kstat
03-16-2009, 04:17 PM
Wrong! Tax payers money go to build these arenas through direct taxes and indirect tax abatements. They are only private enterprise in the minds of fans such as you and UB.

Yeah, I can recall all that tax money going into building the palace...oh wait.

Putnam
03-16-2009, 04:50 PM
I use to work as a temp. If you are a temp, it is nearly impossible to secure an apartment, let alone a home. You can forget trying to buy a car if your employer is a "temp agency". Since then, I have come to find that there are a lot of companies that do this. It's one thing to take our tax money, but to do this and not offer the jobs promised to is purely infuriating.

.


Caution: edging on political here.


Read this new book about how temp workers and others are treated (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Squeeze-Tough-American-Worker/dp/1400044898).


.

Peck
03-16-2009, 05:08 PM
Caution: edging on political here.


Read this new book about how temp workers and others are treated (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Squeeze-Tough-American-Worker/dp/1400044898).


.

Thanks for that, I just ordered it. However if you look at Amazon a little closer you can find that book New in cover for 12.79 with 3.99 shipping.

I am looking forward to getting it, thanks again for the recommendation.

Roaming Gnome
03-16-2009, 05:58 PM
Thanks Putty... After reading a few sample pages... I'm even angrier then I was after discussing HP.

It looks like a good book that I will probably get.

Hicks
03-16-2009, 06:04 PM
It hasn't gotten out of hand, but a friendly reminder to keep this about the league, please. Thanks

Bball
03-16-2009, 06:05 PM
Thanks Putty... After reading a few sample pages... I'm even angrier then I was after discussing HP.

It looks like a good book that I will probably get.


If you want to get even angrier... come help me work on my taxes.

This stuff hitting at tax time really hits a nerve.

Basketball Fan
03-16-2009, 06:35 PM
People who judge others based on the salaries they legally made in a capitalist society sicken me.

These players work every bit as hard at their craft as the average surgeon. Becuase the surgeon saves lives and the players are entertainers does not give anybody the right to put them down for making the money they do.


I agree and its not like they're the CEO's of banks etc who are actually stealing our money to fund their lifestyles. At least they are not robbing us blind.

BlueNGold
03-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Thanks Putty... After reading a few sample pages... I'm even angrier then I was after discussing HP.

It looks like a good book that I will probably get.

I'm sure the book will be a good one. For those who follow and understand global economics & politics, it is pretty much a "singing to the choir" type of book. It's one of the reasons many of us are jaded.

As for the topic of this thread, the NBA is certainly not going under...it is going over. Way over. Basically, in 10 or 20 years, the NBA will be international and the best players...or more specifically the owners...will be soaking tax payers in Dubai, London, Paris and Hong Kong.

Here is Der Stern's plan for growing the NBA internationally. Pretty soon, small markets will be an after thought...a miniscule sacrifice...just like the American worker:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/trainingcamp07/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&id=3071519

YoSoyIndy
03-16-2009, 07:50 PM
I think Bball's right on with his ideas about the NBA's business model being horribly flawed. There are some serious problems with the NBA that are probably not even going to be addressed as they try and retrench.

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Player salaries need to be directly tied to revenue. If the NBA has a crappy year fiscally, player salaries need to be reduced. I'm not sure how this would work logistically as far as weekly paychecks go, but I'm sure something could be figured out.

2. All sports franchises need to have complete transparency in their accounting practices. I'm not sure you could require this if the team is not accepting public money. I think fans, journalists, players, etc. need to know exactly where the organization's money is going. If the books are transparent, I think a lot of the rancor that exists between players and owners might go away if the owners can prove that they're truly losing money.

3. Ticket prices are too high.

4. The NBA season (both regular season and playoffs) is too long. A shorter season is going to improve the quality of the product.

5. There are too many teams. Fewer teams with a greater consolidation of talent would increase parity and improve the product.

I'm sure there are more, but I'm done typing now.

Within a year of implementing your suggestions, a new American-based professional basketball league would pop up.

1. Tying directly to revenue is ridiculous as the players don't control the pricing structure of the tickets. If my pay was directly dependent on how we price our company's products, then I would want absolute input in everything -- R&D, marketing strategy, advertising, pricing, etc.

2. You obviously can't require this unless they're a public company. Fans have no business reason to know the financials. Not only that, the majority of fans wouldn't understand it unless explained and would just second-guess it.

3. I spent $600 for 2 full season packs two seasons ago. Those seats were in the Balcony corner, but still good seats. That's like $5 or $6 a game per seat. And there were plenty of seats around me.

4. Though it would improve the quality of play, how are you going to break even financially if you're cutting ticket prices and the number of games? Most arenas can only hold 18-22,000 people, so it's not like you can keep packing the house.

5. I agree. There are too many teams.

Country Boy
03-16-2009, 08:28 PM
Ahh. So trucking companies are public enterprise because taxpayer money goes to build and maintain roads. Airlines are publicly owned because airports are built by municipalities, not private companies. Performers who give concerts in government-built arenas are also government employees because taxes finance the building of world-class arts and entertainment venues.

Please translate. I responded to a post that basicaly stated that the NBA doesn't rely on taxes and tax abatements to operate their business. There are no pure private enterprise businesses anymore by your way of thinking.

SycamoreKen
03-16-2009, 09:52 PM
Ahh. So trucking companies are public enterprise because taxpayer money goes to build and maintain roads. Airlines are publicly owned because airports are built by municipalities, not private companies. Performers who give concerts in government-built arenas are also government employees because taxes finance the building of world-class arts and entertainment venues.

In most cases, the buisnesses you listed pay more to use those publicly built facilities than most sports teams pay to use the ones they play in. None of those buisnesses get to keep tolls collected on said highways, or food sold in restaurants or magazine shops in the airport. Performers have to pay to use the arenas that they perform in and usually do not get to keep parking and concessions. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Midcoasted
03-17-2009, 12:21 AM
In most cases, the buisnesses you listed pay more to use those publicly built facilities than most sports teams pay to use the ones they play in. None of those buisnesses get to keep tolls collected on said highways, or food sold in restaurants or magazine shops in the airport. Performers have to pay to use the arenas that they perform in and usually do not get to keep parking and concessions. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

Exactly. That is why sports teams, espescially here in Indiana, are supported by my tax dollars. To even phathom the fact that the Pacers aren't getting our money more than we realize is just crazy to me.

If the NBA does go to the international model it will crumble, I gaurantee it. An American league will put them under, unless they want to have subpar players just for the money. Are players really going to want to move overseas to play ball? Yea some will. But the majority of player are born and bread here in the USA and they wont want to leave their families behind. This isn't baseball or soccer. American basketball is supposed to be superior and in most cases it is. The NBA as an international league is a league I will not support. Canada is one thing, Dubai or Beijing another.

ABADays
03-17-2009, 05:53 AM
Having been to Dubai several times I don't think it's possible for them to get "soaked".

OakMoses
03-17-2009, 09:16 AM
People who judge others based on the salaries they legally made in a capitalist society sicken me.

These players work every bit as hard at their craft as the average surgeon. Becuase the surgeon saves lives and the players are entertainers does not give anybody the right to put them down for making the money they do.

It is, however, perfectly valid to judge the society that chooses to value these players so highly.

Anthem
03-17-2009, 01:28 PM
Did anyone really get to look at Enron's books before it was too late?
Yes, actually.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/08/070108fa_fact

Putnam
03-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Yes, actually.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/01/08/070108fa_fact



Yep. Somebody in a position of responsibility nearly always knows when disasters are coming.

Bernie Madoff. Enron. Hurricane Katrina. Bhopal. Three Mile Island. Isandlwanna. The Kabul Residency. The Sandleford Warren.

And they never do anything about it until it's too late.

BlueNGold
03-17-2009, 04:32 PM
Having been to Dubai several times I don't think it's possible for them to get "soaked".

Interesting. I just picked Dubai because I got the sense there was a bunch-o-money there. Now it's confirmed. Bunch-o-corruption I bet too.

Hicks
03-17-2009, 05:31 PM
Again, this needs to stay about the NBA.

YoSoyIndy
03-17-2009, 05:33 PM
It is, however, perfectly valid to judge the society that chooses to value these players so highly.

It's the heart of a free market system. If you have issues with a society that values a free market system, then you're not going to like the NBA or any other American-based business.

SycamoreKen
03-17-2009, 05:44 PM
It's the heart of a free market system. If you have issues with a society that values a free market system, then you're not going to like the NBA or any other American-based business.

Questioning the things a society values highly has nothing to do with it being a free market system. Those values are what drives the system, not the system itself. If society decides that it does not want to keep paying high prices to see what they feel are overpaid men in shorts play a game, then the product will change or disappear if the market is truely free.

The NBA has no reason to get bailed out for providing a bad product that no one wants anymore than any other buisness should, if the markets are truely set up fo this to happen.

I know the conversation has strayed from just the NBA in some cases here, but in order to discuss it in a "real world" way, we will need to compair it to other buisnesses and how they are run. Let's just not get bogged down in the details of those situations that are not a good comparison. For example, I have no desire to diascuss what a free market may or may not be outside of what I pointed out above. There is a place for that.