PDA

View Full Version : Union: $7B over 10 years separate NBA players, owners



pacer4ever
06-23-2011, 07:44 AM
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110623/SPORTS04/106230416/1062/SPORTS04


NEW YORK -- Union officials said Wednesday that NBA players and owners are about $7 billion apart over a 10-year span in their most recent proposals, a significant gap to close to avoid a work stoppage.

So far apart in negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement that union president Derek Fisher said when players were briefed on the state of the talks, they were in "total disbelief" and asked why they even bother having meetings.

"When we put our spreadsheets up, we put it on the board, we lay it out, everybody's at a loss for how to even begin to close this gap," the Lakers guard said.

They have only until June 30, when the current CBA expires. They'll take another crack at it during another session Friday.

But as they continue to disagree over issues relating to the salary cap as well as the enormous gap in economics, it becomes clear how difficult it will be to avoid a lockout.

"Their demand is gargantuan, and we just can't meet it," executive director Billy Hunter said.

Hunter and Fisher decided to meet with reporters after being caught off guard Tuesday when NBA commissioner David Stern revealed details of the league's latest proposal at a news conference after a bargaining session.

Yet Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver laid out their proposal for what they called a "flex cap," in which teams would be targeted to spend $62 million in salary, but could exceed that number through the use of exceptions to an unspecified level before the ceiling kicked in.

The biggest surprise for the union: They said owners never mentioned the $62 million figure to them during discussions.

Players insist what was proposed was still a hard cap because there was an eventual limit, and they have said from the start they will not agree to a hard cap.

Fisher said the "flex" cap was a "total distortion of reality," saying "it's not a flexible cap, it's a hard cap."

The league's proposal guaranteed players' total compensation would never fall below $2 billion a year in a 10-year contract, but players earned $2.1 billion this season.

They oppose the 10-year deal the league seeks, having proposed a five-year contract. The union said the league wants the unusually long deal -- the longest previously has been six years -- because the league's national TV contract expires after the 2015 season, when it could have more money coming in without having to share it with the players.

Owners say they are losing $300 million this season, and players argue that can be addressed by expanded revenue sharing. Stern has said they will have it, but only with a new CBA.

graphic-er
06-23-2011, 09:24 AM
The players are being stupid. They think its a freaking money train until it completely derails. Money train or bust!

Do they not realize there is a bunch of franchises that will be going up for sale in the near future, and nobody is gonna fund their money train if the new owner can't make any money off it.

Ownagedood
06-23-2011, 09:26 AM
I heard yesterday during the NBA Draft preview that the lockout is inevitable. That the NBA lockout situation is a 100x worse than the one in the NFL. Also that the NBA lockout will last a long time.. The only thing that will stop it is, surprisingly enough, many NBA players live paycheck to paycheck and they will end up coming to an agreement just to "make it"

That's a quote from memory, since its not a legit "quote" i didn't actually quote it.

Pacers24Colts12
06-23-2011, 09:32 AM
NBA needs to change things badly. Hopefully the owners play hardball and don't give them anything. I side with the NFL Players, but not the NBA players. Too many franchises losing too much money. They have to give out these bad contracts or they'll suck even worse and have no players at all. Boston, LA, Dallas, Miami, NY all drive up the prices for the small market teams.

Larry Staverman
06-23-2011, 09:45 AM
"Owners say they are losing $300 million this season, and players argue that can be addressed by expanded revenue sharing. Stern has said they will have it, but only with a new CBA"

If the league as a whole is losing $300 million all revenue sharing will do is move the losses around. You have to have a profit before revenue sharing will work.


I saw where the players had proposed a $500 million concession over 5 years but that would only reduce the league's losses to $200 million a year.

No business owner in their right mind would consider that a credible offer.

The starting point for the players offer has to be a minimum of $300 million a year to get the league to break even and then figure out a reasonable profit level attainable for the teams after that.

The players have milked the golden goose dry and now are still delusional enough to believe they can still have their sweetheart deal with worthless players receiving guaranteed contracts that end up with eight figure buyouts to just go away while owners eats hundreds of millions in losses.

Beam me up Scottie!

Ozwalt72
06-23-2011, 09:48 AM
My guess is that this labor deal is going to seem BRUTAL until the season is about a month away, and then the players break.

thefeistyone
06-23-2011, 10:10 AM
The players are nuts.

It's obvious if the league is losing that much money then the system in broken. Something needs to be fixed. If the players compromise is that the league lose $200 million instead of $300 million then they must be letting brandon rush do their proposals after a half baked marathon.

spreedom
06-23-2011, 10:12 AM
In the battle of millionaires vs. billionaires, I am pulling for the fans. Get a freaking deal done so there is NBA basketball next year. I don't feel sorry for players that are "living paycheck-to-paycheck" on an absolute minimum of $450K per year, nor do I feel sorry for owners who hand out awful contracts. Cry my a river. Get it done so you don't risk permanently alienating a chunk of your fanbase.

Shade
06-23-2011, 10:20 AM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

DaveP63
06-23-2011, 10:27 AM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

This.

LetsTalkPacers
06-23-2011, 10:42 AM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

Agreed 100%

wintermute
06-23-2011, 10:43 AM
In the battle of millionaires vs. billionaires, I am pulling for the fans. Get a freaking deal done so there is NBA basketball next year. I don't feel sorry for players that are "living paycheck-to-paycheck" on an absolute minimum of $450K per year, nor do I feel sorry for owners who hand out awful contracts. Cry my a river. Get it done so you don't risk permanently alienating a chunk of your fanbase.

I would thank this post 1000x if I could. Well said.

Pacersalltheway10
06-23-2011, 10:44 AM
WTF do they want? A 120 million soft cap?

Since86
06-23-2011, 11:02 AM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

This year's cap was $58Mil compared to a cap of $35.5Mil just 10 years ago.

There HAS to be a hard cap, there's no way around it. Large market teams are simply driving salaries way too high.

The Lakers are on the hook for $59Mil next year, for Kobe, Pau, and Bynum. In 2012-2013 they're scheduled to pay Kobe/Pau $46.8Mil and a team option of $16Mil for Bynum. (If you combine all 8 players that are under contract for that year, including options, they're paying $91,608,109. That's only for EIGHT players)

In 2013-2014 Kobe/Pau are scheduled to make a little under $50Mil between them.

It doesn't matter how much you roll back salaries, or how much revenue you share. In 10 years the league will be right back at this place if they don't control spending in a way that severly punishes, or prohibits, teams from going over the cap limit.

We talked about it in another thread a few months ago, but without controlling spending you're going to end up like MLB. Teams like the Yankees/Red Sox/Cubs/etc all spend so much money that it's impossible for teams like Kansas City/Pittsburgh to compete. So they simply reduce their payroll as much as possible to field a team, and then they sit back and collect revenue sharing and post a profit. They don't care to field a competitive team, because they know they don't have the pockets to do so.

The Marlins are really the only franchise in the MLB that do a good job of competing on a small payroll, but they get a good team, win with it, and then when all their young guys are ready to get paid, they either ship them out for new prospects or simply let them walk and restart the process. That is extremely hard to do, and it has zero shot of working in the NBA due to the differences between baseball and basketball.

The players need to release that their 10 year ride on the gravy train just stopped and they need to come back down to reality.

EDIT: Lakers salary can be found here.
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/lakers.jsp

And salary cap history can be found here.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2516704

BillS
06-23-2011, 11:14 AM
The Marlins are really the only franchise in the MLB that do a good job of competing on a small payroll, but they get a good team, win with it, and then when all their young guys are ready to get paid, they either ship them out for new prospects or simply let them walk and restart the process. That is extremely hard to do, and it has zero shot of working in the NBA due to the differences between baseball and basketball.

The biggest difference being the extensive farm system, where you can develop guys for cheap until you are ready to bring them up.

Brad8888
06-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Why don't they just turn the league into a series of 3 on 3 tourneys? That way the players that still have jobs can get the money they think they deserve, the owners can operate at significantly reduced costs from the salary base being cut, and fans can get what most fans want, which is their favorite teams having a chance on any given night and highlight plays happening with even more frequency than they already do...

No two ways about it, things have spiraled out of control due to the "leadership" of Stern where large markets are given every conceivable advantage, players are promoted as being more important than franchises (or even the league itself), and as a result player (and don't forget agent) compensation has far outstripped the ability of the league to sustain itself given the state of the economy in the majority of NBA cities.

Yes, it looks quite bleak at the moment, but hopefully either the two sides will decide that they want the league to survive, or hopefully an upstart league like the ABA will quickly rise and begin to fill the huge gap and force the two sides to a day of reckoning.

Since86
06-23-2011, 11:27 AM
This could kill Stern's legacy, IMHO. Two long lockouts under his watch? Ouch. But it's most definitely deserved. The killing of his legacy, that is.

thewholefnshow31
06-23-2011, 11:32 AM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

Stern and the owners have nobody but themselves to blame for the salaries ballooning up like they have.

Stern just set idly bad and watched as owners/GMs just threw money around. When you start giving out bad contracts to scrubs that drives the market it up on every level. How the hell did Curry get a 6 year 60 million dollar deal? All that does is totally screw up the market.

This holdout really is not about the players demanding to much. It is more about the teams finding a way to protect themselves from themselves because god knows they cannot. Heck they were complaining about how much money they were losing going into the offseason this year and they threw around money like it was nothing.

Hopefully we can get a hard cap in there, some revenue sharing, and maybe even some kind of franchise tag.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 11:37 AM
There HAS to be a hard cap, there's no way around it. Large market teams are simply driving salaries way too high.


I think you know my position on this and I know yours, so I won't go into a big discussion on the hard cap.

But I'd like to challenge your assertion that player salaries are "too high". Since 1999, an escrow system has been in place that guarantees player salaries would not exceed a certain percentage of league revenue. This effectively is a league wide hard cap.

It does not though address the question of certain teams being to spend a lot more than others. But it does mean that player salaries aren't out of control, they are constrained eventually at the league level. Kobe's headline salary of $24m isn't what he takes home, in fact a healthy percentage of that goes back to owners through the escrow system.

So while it's true that the salary cap and player salaries have grown through the years, it's also true that league revenues have grown proportionally.

Want the players to have smaller salaries? It's simple - attend fewer games, buy less merchandise, don't even watch TV to ensure the NBA has lower ratings. Revenues go down and so will player salaries.

Kraut N Beer
06-23-2011, 11:38 AM
The NFL has the cash cow preseason that the owners do not want to miss out on. That is not the case in the NBA, so the owners should play hardball and wait this out. The owners already conceded on the non-guaranteed contracts, so the players should conceed on the dollars.

Since86
06-23-2011, 11:56 AM
I think you know my position on this and I know yours, so I won't go into a big discussion on the hard cap.

But I'd like to challenge your assertion that player salaries are "too high". Since 1999, an escrow system has been in place that guarantees player salaries would not exceed a certain percentage of league revenue. This effectively is a league wide hard cap.

It does not though address the question of certain teams being to spend a lot more than others. But it does mean that player salaries aren't out of control, they are constrained eventually at the league level. Kobe's headline salary of $24m isn't what he takes home, in fact a healthy percentage of that goes back to owners through the escrow system.

So while it's true that the salary cap and player salaries have grown through the years, it's also true that league revenues have grown proportionally.

Want the players to have smaller salaries? It's simple - attend fewer games, buy less merchandise, don't even watch TV to ensure the NBA has lower ratings. Revenues go down and so will player salaries.

I've already laid out evidence that salaries are too high. The Lakers have a payroll over $90mil dollars, compared to the Kings that have a payroll of $44mil. That's a 46 MILLION DOLLAR difference.

Okay, you're rebuttle is that I'm picking the highest salary and comparing it to the lowest salary.

The 10th highest payroll in the league belongs to the Bucks. They're payroll is $69Mil, that's $22mil in difference.

Do you know how many teams were under the salary "cap" last season? Six. Six teams. That's it. And it's called a salary CAP...

And teams have been losing revenue every year, and the salary cap has continued to increase.

The idea that if they start losing money it will curtail spending is just wrong. The Pacers lose an average of 15mil per year, and they're payroll still increases.

It increases because while the Pacers are losing 15mil per year, teams like the Lakers and the Knicks can fall out of bed and make money.

2 out of 3 teams are losing money already. I don't know how you can say that if teams start losing money, spending will stop. Clearly, that's not going to happen, because they're already losing money.....

naptownmenace
06-23-2011, 11:58 AM
This year's cap was $58Mil compared to a cap of $35.5Mil just 10 years ago.

And salary cap history can be found here.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2516704

I had no idea the soft salary cap was that low just 10 seasons ago. It was basically worthless though because teams could go over the soft cap to retain their own free agents and there was the MLE and Veteran exception players that could be signed on top of that.

The owners are as much to blame or even more to blame for the current salary landscape of the NBA. I mean who was the idiot that agreed to sign Jerome James to a full MLE 6 million dollar deal for like 4-5 years? Don't even get me started on the deal MLE that Mark Blount got. The owners and GMs have really failed with the MLE.

It's not the players' fault that Eddie Curry, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Jermaine O'Neal and several others were signed for more than they were worth. The owners should take a hard look at each other in the negotiating room and realize that many of them really suck at evaluating talent and making sound basketball decisions.

Of course the economy and market size plays a big factor in revenue but the owners have done a good job of driving up the price of some marginal NBA talent on the free agent market. The past couple of off seasons there has been some improvement made as many teams seem to be learning from their past mistakes but there will always be some team that is willing to pay a guy like Rudy Gay 83 million for 5 years.

The owners need a hard cap because they can't control themselves. That seems like the only way they won't make the same dumb mistakes they've continued to make the past 14-15 seasons. They need protection from the CBA.

Since86
06-23-2011, 12:16 PM
It's not the players' fault that Eddie Curry, Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Rashard Lewis, Gilbert Arenas, Joe Johnson, Jermaine O'Neal and several others were signed for more than they were worth. The owners should take a hard look at each other in the negotiating room and realize that many of them really suck at evaluating talent and making sound basketball decisions.

It kind of is, although I'm not going to really punish them for taking what they can get.

The players help drive up salaries, because they don't understand a "bad" salary. They see Mike D, or Troy, making 9mil per year and think that they're worth the same or more, when in reality they're only worth about 6mil per year.

Once the ball starts rolling, it won't end until someone (the owners) stop it.

What I do find them at fault for, is diggin their feet into the sand when it's pretty damn obvious the status-quo can't continue.

In these situations, you either come to the table as a willing participant or your get rolled over.

I bet the players take a stand, and get rolled the F over, and end up giving more up at the end than they would have if they just would have played ball at the beginning.

There will always be more players willing to play for a lot less money. Sure the NBA might suffer, for a while, at the lack of talent. But what do you think LeBron is going to go do and still make millions of dollars? Nothing.

If the owners draw a line in concrete and say, "You won't get a penny more than this" eventually LeBron and Co. are going to cave because they will still be paid more for playing basketball than anything else.

The NFL is in a completely different position, because the fans will back the players. The NFL owners are being greedy and trying to hold on to as much profit as they can. That's not going to sit well with the fan base.

Trying not to lose money and just break even is the position of the NBA owners, and the fans will turn on the players for the work stoppage.

The "haves" will always lose to the "have nots" when it comes down to PR.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 12:51 PM
I've already laid out evidence that salaries are too high. The Lakers have a payroll over $90mil dollars, compared to the Kings that have a payroll of $44mil. That's a 46 MILLION DOLLAR difference.

Okay, you're rebuttle is that I'm picking the highest salary and comparing it to the lowest salary.

The 10th highest payroll in the league belongs to the Bucks. They're payroll is $69Mil, that's $22mil in difference.

Do you know how many teams were under the salary "cap" last season? Six. Six teams. That's it. And it's called a salary CAP...

And teams have been losing revenue every year, and the salary cap has continued to increase.

The idea that if they start losing money it will curtail spending is just wrong. The Pacers lose an average of 15mil per year, and they're payroll still increases.

It increases because while the Pacers are losing 15mil per year, teams like the Lakers and the Knicks can fall out of bed and make money.

2 out of 3 teams are losing money already. I don't know how you can say that if teams start losing money, spending will stop. Clearly, that's not going to happen, because they're already losing money.....

Er... did you read my post? I'm not disputing that some teams spend more than others.

Take a look at the league as a whole though. Are the league's revenues increasing? Yes (link (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q15)). Are player salaries constrained as a percentage of revenue? Also yes (link (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q10)).

You're saying player salaries are high because certain teams (e.g. Pacers) can't afford them. I'm saying player salaries aren't high because the league can afford them.*

Does this make a difference? I think so. From the first point of view, the solution is to drive down salaries so that every team can afford the player salaries (the hard cap approach). An alternative point of view, is that you can redistribute league money such that every team can afford the player salaries (the "communist" approach :p ).

You know, at this point I'd just like people to acknowledge that there is a second approach. Everyone seems too fixated on the hard cap.


* Well, previously anyway. The owners are now saying that their other non-player expenses are rising faster than revenue, so they want to change the BRI split. In fact, the negotiation of this split is what I believe to be the core issue, not the hard or flex cap.

Kegboy
06-23-2011, 01:03 PM
In the battle of millionaires vs. billionaires, I am pulling for the fans. Get a freaking deal done so there is NBA basketball next year. I don't feel sorry for players that are "living paycheck-to-paycheck" on an absolute minimum of $450K per year, nor do I feel sorry for owners who hand out awful contracts. Cry my a river. Get it done so you don't risk permanently alienating a chunk of your fanbase.

Would you rather them get it done quick so you can have your basketball, only to see a league where the same 5 teams compete for a title every year while everyone else scrapes by, or would you rather them take their time and get it right?

Since86
06-23-2011, 01:04 PM
I refuse to believe that the NBA can solve it's problems through revenue sharing. While the profits of the entire league, might be enough to cover the loses of most of the teams, I fully believe that they won't agree to it.

Why in the world would Dolan/Buss/etc agree to give up their money so that the Simons can break even, or post a profit, when they can simply lower contracts and let the Simons break even, or post a profit, on their own?

It offers zero incentive for teams like NYK/LAL/etc to try to get as much out of their deals that let them post a profit, like TV deals.

You always fight harder for something that you get to keep for yourself, rather than giving most of it away. There's just no incentive to get as much as you can.

What's the difference between getting a $25Mil/year deal for TV rights and a $15Mil/year deal for TV rights, if you're not going to see any increase in revenue from it? None.

Buss/Dolan/etc aren't going to open up their pocketbooks to make sure that the rest of the league breaks even. It's not going to happen. That's a last effort solution, and we would see league contraction before it ever happens, so the pie will be split between fewer teams.

It's just not going to happen, because they can fix the system and allow the teams to stand independently from one another.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 01:26 PM
Would you rather them get it done quick so you can have your basketball, only to see a league where the same 5 teams compete for a title every year while everyone else scrapes by, or would you rather them take their time and get it right?

Why would a quick resolution mean that same 5 teams contend every year? Are you saying a reasonable compromise between owners and players would result in an uncompetitive landscape? Are you suggesting that the players are somehow opposed to improved competitiveness? That doesn't make sense.

Trophy
06-23-2011, 01:36 PM
This is Stern's fault. He let salaries spiral out of control for 20 years and now the players have grown accustomed to it.

As much as I don't like blaming one individual vs. a whole league, I've had enough of Stern's plans and administration.

This needed to be lowered years ago and well before last offseason or at least worked up to a point to lower caps.

In today's NBA, I don't think Stern is able to do it anymore. More money is being made/needed than 10-20 years ago and he really needs to put his foot down and help out the majority of the league so they can grab a player who is pretty much forced to settle with that team.

I don't like the whole big and small market thing and who has an advantage. Everyone should be neck and neck here. So I don't know if I like a harder, strict cap and making it difficult on everyone to spend money, but it means everyone is equal.

BillS
06-23-2011, 01:39 PM
Why would a quick resolution mean that same 5 teams contend every year? Are you saying a reasonable compromise between owners and players would result in an uncompetitive landscape? Are you suggesting that the players are somehow opposed to improved competitiveness? That doesn't make sense.

Not sure what the players care about competitiveness. Recent movement seems to indicate that players care about being able to get to a championship team, not to help their current team become one.

From a pure pocketbook point of view, being a player on a small market competitive team doesn't have the impact of being a player on a large market competitive team. If other top players gravitate to those markets due to the availability of $$, where is the financial incentive to help another team become competitive?

Kegboy
06-23-2011, 01:48 PM
Why would a quick resolution mean that same 5 teams contend every year? Are you saying a reasonable compromise between owners and players would result in an uncompetitive landscape? Are you suggesting that the players are somehow opposed to improved competitiveness? That doesn't make sense.

My point is I don't agree with the notion that a fan has no stake in these negotiations beyond when the games will start again.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 02:00 PM
From a pure pocketbook point of view, being a player on a small market competitive team doesn't have the impact of being a player on a large market competitive team. If other top players gravitate to those markets due to the availability of $$, where is the financial incentive to help another team become competitive?

Simply, more buyers? Even rich teams have roster limits.

Uncompetitive teams field low payrolls, prefer cheap rookies or hire minimum wage vets. Contenders tend to offer better contracts. So there is an incentive for the players if more teams are competitive.


My point is I don't agree with the notion that a fan has no stake in these negotiations beyond when the games will start again.

That would be true if the main arguments are about leveling the playing field. I don't think the players are against a level playing field at all. In fact, the only party with a vested interest in an uncompetitive landscape are the big market owners.

No, I think the real bone of contention is the $$$, i.e. the revenue split between owners and players. That's the bottomline really. Since your average fan doesn't see a penny of this (Anyone think owners would reduce ticket prices if they get a good deal from the players? Didn't think so), then yes I just want them to settle on a reasonable split as soon as possible.

Since86
06-23-2011, 02:08 PM
Uncompetitive teams field low payrolls, prefer cheap rookies or hire minimum wage vets. Contenders tend to offer better contracts. So there is an incentive for the players if more teams are competitive.

And big market teams, like the Lakers/Boston/Chicago, stay competetive because they have the financial resources to buy their way out of mediocrisy.

There's a reason why Boston/LA/Chicago dominate the league, and it isn't because their front office is full of masterminds.

What other teams in the league can afford to do the things New York does?

There's a reason why the Nets want to get into Brooklyn, and out of Jersey, and it's not to save the 30minute commute.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 02:13 PM
And big market teams, like the Lakers/Boston/Chicago, stay competetive because they have the financial resources to buy their way out of mediocrisy.

There's a reason why Boston/LA/Chicago dominate the league, and it isn't because their front office is full of masterminds.

What other teams in the league can afford to do the things New York does?

There's a reason why the Nets want to get into Brooklyn, and out of Jersey, and it's not to save the 30minute commute.

Well, to me, that's an argument for revenue sharing, but I already know what you think of that idea :p

DaveP63
06-23-2011, 02:15 PM
This could kill Stern's legacy, IMHO. Two long lockouts under his watch? Ouch. But it's most definitely deserved. The killing of his legacy, that is.

I doubt he gives two ***** about his legacy while he rides around Manhattan in a solid gold Mercedes, but you never know...

Since86
06-23-2011, 02:17 PM
Because revenue sharing doesn't fix the problem of big market teams being able to merely spend more than everyone else.

I disagree with revenue sharing for a number of reasons, the biggest one being it doesn't fix any problems, just merely shuffles around some money from the haves to the have nots.

EDIT: And eventually the money train will run out of track. There's going to be a ceiling to how much revenue the big market teams will be able to gather up, and then split among the rest of the league.

All it will do is prolong the root of the problem.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 02:33 PM
Because revenue sharing doesn't fix the problem of big market teams being able to merely spend more than everyone else.

I disagree with revenue sharing for a number of reasons, the biggest one being it doesn't fix any problems, just merely shuffles around some money from the haves to the have nots.

EDIT: And eventually the money train will run out of track. There's going to be a ceiling to how much revenue the big market teams will be able to gather up, and then split among the rest of the league.

All it will do is prolong the root of the problem.

I don't know about you but I think it's kind of a big deal if you can shuffle some of the rich teams' wealth and give it to the poorer teams.

As you say, there would be practical difficulties in getting owners like Dolan and Buss to share the wealth, but let's say for a moment that it does happen and the entire league's revenues is split 30 ways. Then everyone will have the same spending money and then who will be able to outspend anyone else? Surely that's a solution?

Hard cap approach is to make sure everyone's costs is the same; revenue sharing approach is to make sure everyone's income is the same. Attacking the same problem from different ends, if you will. And ultimately perhaps a workable system will take elements of both.

BillS
06-23-2011, 02:37 PM
Simply, more buyers? Even rich teams have roster limits.

Uncompetitive teams field low payrolls, prefer cheap rookies or hire minimum wage vets. Contenders tend to offer better contracts. So there is an incentive for the players if more teams are competitive.

Minimum payroll amounts take care of that problem neatly without worrying about competitiveness. As long as there's an MLE, the majority of players in the league will feel that their finances are taken care of and they won't have to work for those $1M paupers' wages.

The argument that might make sense is that competitive teams are more likely to stay in business, but it is in the players' financial interest to have that competitiveness come at a higher salary cost, not a lower one. Their answer is "well, if it takes $90M to field a competitive team, then EVERYONE should spend $90M." Their viewpoint doesn't care that some teams can't bring in that kind of money with their local market - which is why your argument focuses on revenue sharing.

I agree with Since86 (and the ice skates are selling like hotcakes in Hell, thanks very much ;)) that revenue sharing can at best only work until the salaries begin to impact the bottom lines of the current high-$ teams. At some point you have an entire league being supported by revenues from 4 or 5 teams, which is a horrible business model. And never mind the idea that if everyone together loses $300M then revenue sharing only means an individual team loses a smaller portion of that, not that they break even. That means it is a stopgap, not a solution.

Since86
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
They're not going to do 100% revenue sharing. It's not going to happen.

The big market teams will NEVER sign off on it. EVER. EVER. EVER.

EDIT: The NFL labor agreement is being held up because Jerry Jones/Robert Kraft want to keep more of the pie for themselves and that's with the entire league producing a profit.

You really think that NBA owners are going to give up ALL their profits when NFL owners won't even give a bigger portion?

It's great in theory, but it won't work. It causes too many issues on too many levels.

Pacergeek
06-23-2011, 02:47 PM
too many players are "stealing" money from the NBA. this has to stop. If you can't play ball at a high level, and you aren't earning your coin, you don't get the $$.

wintermute
06-23-2011, 02:57 PM
I agree with Since86 (and the ice skates are selling like hotcakes in Hell, thanks very much ;)) that revenue sharing can at best only work until the salaries begin to impact the bottom lines of the current high-$ teams. At some point you have an entire league being supported by revenues from 4 or 5 teams, which is a horrible business model. And never mind the idea that if everyone together loses $300M then revenue sharing only means an individual team loses a smaller portion of that, not that they break even. That means it is a stopgap, not a solution.

You're ignoring the BRI and escrow provisions though, which ensure that player salaries as a total don't exceed a certain percentage of revenues. There is a hard cap in place already, it's just that it's a league wide cap and not a per team cap. With that in mind, I'm pretty sure that the players are willing to concede a split that ensures that the league as a whole is profitable. The question is whether they need to concede a split such that every team is profitable.

BillS
06-23-2011, 03:23 PM
You're ignoring the BRI and escrow provisions though, which ensure that player salaries as a total don't exceed a certain percentage of revenues. There is a hard cap in place already, it's just that it's a league wide cap and not a per team cap. With that in mind, I'm pretty sure that the players are willing to concede a split that ensures that the league as a whole is profitable. The question is whether they need to concede a split such that every team is profitable.

And I don't think anyone is trying to say that every team should be guaranteed a profit. I think all that is being said is that the size of the payroll should not determine the quality of the team.

You can either balance the playing field on the revenue side (where teams that have good circumstances or management are forced to pay a tax, if you will, to support other teams), from the expense side (where you try to level a major portion of a team's expenses - the payroll), or a combination of the two.

Just reallocating income, whether that be making the TOTAL income "shared" or the TOTAL expense set as a limit (the BRI%) simply assumes that there's enough income to go around and doesn't help when the economy or circumstances have changed so much that income is not sufficient. That's the "subprime mortgage" model - hey, real estate prices will never drop, why worry about it. As we are seeing, that isn't the case.

The players would be perfectly happy at this point to have a few teams with huge salaries, because the goal just becomes to move to those teams as your career goes forward. That's why they have no financial incentive to do anything but address the TOTAL amount of money the league can spend.

At some point, you have to control expenses. If you could be like a local business, where you can control your expenses and still be successful because your local competition generally has the same playing field you do, then this could be done without placing controls on what businesses outside your area can or cannot do. In the NBA model, though, since some owners are richer even OUTSIDE their NBA income, there will always be an incentive for the rich to spend more money as long as success is directly proportional to payroll size.

I feel there has to be a combination of revenue sharing and salary control, because the reality is that great players command great salaries. However, since the players have to buy off on caps, the actual individual team payroll limit expense control that will help smaller market teams compete against deep pocket owners MUST be in the CBA and MUST be held to by the owners.

pacer4ever
06-23-2011, 03:36 PM
could we possibly do what they did in 1983?

cdash
06-23-2011, 03:38 PM
could we possibly do what they did in 1983?

Loads of cocaine?

pacer4ever
06-23-2011, 03:43 PM
Loads of cocaine?

lol no they played the season with no CBA. They played with last years CBA and got a deal done during the season. They added a salary cap in that CBA agreement when no other league had one.

Since86
06-23-2011, 03:45 PM
lol no they played the season with no CBA. They played with last years CBA and got a deal done during the season. They added a salary cap in that CBA agreement when no other team had one.

You have a better chance of becoming God than that happening.

Cactus Jax
06-23-2011, 03:51 PM
You have a better chance of becoming God than that happening.
Well if he becomes God, then we know Eric Gordon will be on the Pacers