NBlue wrote:drsd wrote:
For me the only solution for a "fair" CBA would be if the star players were "removed" from the negotiation. The bottom 200 players in the NBA represent half of what the player's association represents, yet CBAs are never maximal to their interests. I have never understood that.
Increasing minimum salaries. Giving more injury protection on salary. Protect veteran players playing time from incompetent rookies who will take years to develop as a true NBA baller (the Hezonja types). Increase pensions and health care for retired players.
---> There are a lot of little things Silver could do to get low end of NBA Ballers to get 50% +1 of NBA players to have an income stream that essentially eliminates the future of $200M contracts and $40M a year contracts. But that won't happen. And I don't understand why.
Michele Roberts is charged with maximising super-star players' contracts rather than improving the income of the most total number of players. That's just how it is.
I think that really depends on your definition of "fair." If you are defining "fair" as more equal wealth distribution than -- okay, sure. If you are defining "fair" based on a fair-market valuation of the players true worth than I think its clear that Lebron James would be the most underpaid player in the NBA (by far). In the NBA perhaps more than any other professional sport, stars bring eyeballs and sell tickets. The NBA television contracts is primarily based on the star players, not the 10th, 11th and 12th players on the bench (let alone 13 and 14). The minimum NBA salary is $800,000 but if you look at the true value of a 13th or 14th player that certainly well overstates their value on almost every occasion. Conversely, looking at Lebron for example I think he is easily worth $75M per year and probably well more than that to any team he is on due to the marketing cache alone. One could say the same with Steph though Lebron is still more ingrained internationally of course.
To be clear, I'm not impugning the NBA model -- I'm just saying what you are seeking is a more equal distribution of profits -- that doesn't mean that its "fair". It might be the "right" thing to do (or not) depending on your perspective.
Before the 2011 CBA negotiations, the players earned 57% of BRI. After the 2011 CBA negotiations, that dropped down to 50% plus or minus a percent of BRI. I personally think that star players like Lebron James and Chris Paul bring value and leverage to CBA negotiations. Specifically, their presence and leadership may help the NBPA earn back a bigger slice of BRI. That is still yet to be seen though.
Currently, about 10% of the NBA are players with “max” salaries. The remaining 90% fall in the other categories.
The current demographic of the NBPA Player Representatives/Executive Committee in my estimation are as follows:
~38%: “max”, “soon-to-be max”, or “close-to-max” players.
~40%: “middle-class” players
~18%: “rookie-scale” players
~2%: minimum player
~2%: non-guaranteed player
The NBPA leadership/executive committee site has yet to be updated, but this is what I researched & gathered (click on image in twitter to zoom):
With the number of non-max players in the NBPA outnumbering "max", "soon-to-be max", or "close-to-max" players, I predict that minimum salaries will get a bump in % that scales with the salary cap just like how max-tier salaries do. Regardless of what class the player falls in, all players will inevitably plateau, a few will play past their prime, and many may be destined for minimum salaries; thus, I think the popular vote would be to increase minimum salaries.
So, what criteria do we use to determine who is a star player? That would be tough to decide and then defend.