Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[Homer Jay]

90% of the players don't want decert. It means 10% will make 30 mil a year and the rest will be lucky to make 1 mil. Hell some could end up playing for 250k!

It is the 10% that are pushing for this.

This isn't the Unions big weapon. It is the union falling apart. Hunter and the 10% on one side and Fisher and the 90% on the other.

I suspect we have a vote on the current offer mailed out to the players on Monday with a vote on Wednesday. It's '98 all over again.

[Laowai]

So lemme get this straight...

If the Player's association decertifies, the "special agreement" that allows them to have a monopoly becomes null and void? That means that all labour laws that apply to other employee-employer relationships can be enacted right?

If they knew the league wasn't going to bargain in good faith, why didn't they do this earlier?

De certifying the union is a very slippery slope without any clear law to back the union and opinions differ greatly on any possible success. By decertifying does it also void all current contracts with the players. The legal battle could take years and the owners can afford it where are the players getting the money from the agents laughing.

[S.W.A.N]

So lemme get this straight...

If the Player's association decertifies, the "special agreement" that allows them to have a monopoly becomes null and void? That means that all labour laws that apply to other employee-employer relationships can be enacted right?

If they knew the league wasn't going to bargain in good faith, why didn't they do this earlier?

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/dec ... ng-message

Larry Coon is the king on all things CBA related and explains it better than I ever could...read this if you have any interest in decertification.

Traditionally the union has always had the ability to decertify and has come close to using it before. The main reason that they don't beyond the fact that it makes things messy is the simple fact that without a CBA the average player will make way less.

As D wade said before, on a free market he makes $50 million dollars, but because he is part of the union he capped at 20 or so.

With the union all players benefit from guaranteed contracts, pay raises, and premium wages beyond what they could earn on their own.

In a free market a team with a 100 million budget might spend 98 million on its top three players and 2 on the rest. The grunts and bench guys would not be millionaires or have job security.

The union has about 450 players, 400 of which get more from being in a union than they ever would without it. Of the top 50 players only the top 5 or so are really getting screwed, and those guys make enough in endorsement contracts that they can handle the loss in potential earnings.


Of the 50 guys that were part of that conference call on decertification I will bet that at least half were upper level earners with an agent in their ear telling them what to do. Of the guys that have been linked to the phone call the only names we have so far are:

Paul Pierce
Ray Allan
Dwight Howard
Dwayne Wade
Blake Griffin
Jason Kidd
Al Horford
Tyson Chandler
DeAnder Jordan

All upper level earners (or about to be)

These are not the guys that are going to lose the most union truly decertifies, they will do well regardless.

Its a good bluff, because small market owners should be terrified by competing in a free market with the big owners.

[floppymoose]

90% of the players don't want decert. It means 10% will make 30 mil a year and the rest will be lucky to make 1 mil. Hell some could end up playing for 250k!

It is the 10% that are pushing for this.

This isn't the Unions big weapon. It is the union falling apart. Hunter and the 10% on one side and Fisher and the 90% on the other.

I suspect we have a vote on the current offer mailed out to the players on Monday with a vote on Wednesday. It's '98 all over again.

There is no chance the owners don't improve their offer if the union decertifies. None. Zero.

If the union decertifies, the next agreement between NBA players and owners will be with a union.

So no, this isn't a battle between guys who are going to make 30 mil and guys who are going to make 250K, because that simply isn't an endpoint that the owners can live with. They would honestly go back to 57.5% again before they would do that. And you know why? Because the players would make more than that if there weren't a labor agreement.

[dhackett1565]

90% of the players don't want decert. It means 10% will make 30 mil a year and the rest will be lucky to make 1 mil. Hell some could end up playing for 250k!

It is the 10% that are pushing for this.

This isn't the Unions big weapon. It is the union falling apart. Hunter and the 10% on one side and Fisher and the 90% on the other.

I suspect we have a vote on the current offer mailed out to the players on Monday with a vote on Wednesday. It's '98 all over again.

There is no chance the owners don't improve their offer if the union decertifies. None. Zero.

If the union decertifies, the next agreement between NBA players and owners will be with a union.

So no, this isn't a battle between guys who are going to make 30 mil and guys who are going to make 250K, because that simply isn't an endpoint that the owners can live with. They would honestly go back to 57.5% again before they would do that. And you know why? Because the players would make more than that if there weren't a labor agreement.

You sure? Wouldn't a lot of teams start spending 10 million per year in salaries, just grabbing the small players, and playing competitively against the 2/3 of the league that does that, with a few teams (probably less than 10, more like 5) offering big contracts to the franchise players. And the Miami 3 have already shown that players are willing to take relative pay-cuts if they can play together, so the big teams won't be shelling out 50 million per player.

I think it would be a bit of a toss up whether the expenses get up to 57% again. But it certainly would hurt the league not to have an agreement in place.

Oh, and "If the union decertifies, the next agreement between NBA players and owners will be with a union." Well, yeah. Otherwise there wouldn't be an agreement period. Who would the agreement be with if not a union?

[ranger001]

Here's a great article by Michael McCann, sports law professor

Decertification would put 2011-12 NBA season in serious jeopardy

If the players decertify, is a 2011-12 season more or less likely to occur?

Less likely. Decertification would probably be followed by the filing of antitrust litigation, which would take weeks or months to unravel, let alone resolve. While the league and players could still in effect negotiate during the litigation, since (like during the NFL lockout) settlement discussions over the antitrust lawsuit tend to cover the same issues driving the lockout, the litigation process itself would give commissioner David Stern greater reason to cancel the remainder of the season.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I thought the league had sued the PA on the grounds that they were bargaining unfairly. It seems like a bad idea to leak to Woj that they're going to decertify if they don't get their 52%.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Without union the league would spend more than 57% of BRI. I think this is almost given. Otherwise why do think the owners are pushing for hard cap/restrictive system and offer the players less share of the BRI? Technically under the current system no owners is forced to spend anything more than 75% of salary cap ($43M) and only 2 teams were under this last year (both rebuilding).

Secondly the other misconception is that without union high end players would be making all the money and the low end players would be lucky to play for $200K. This is not untrue and you can just look at the sports leagues without any union. For instances look at the English Premier League. Sure the high end players are getting paid but the last guy on the team is still a millionaire.

The same market forces that will cause bidding wars for the likes of Lebron/Kobe/Howard/etc will happen with the mid-low end players. Technically teams could offer minimum salary to the MLE players, but they don't because another team is willing to pay them higher wage. Right there is restrictive system in which only few teams are able to bid on the services of players. Without this ALL 30 teams will be bidding for FA.

The problem for the players under this system is that this model is unsustainable and risky. Many owners, especially the cheap/small markets that are forcing unions hand will suffer and become irrelevant, and possibly bankrupt. Thus overall revenue might take hit and as such players share of this.

[knickerbocker2k2]

I thought the league had sued the PA on the grounds that they were bargaining unfairly. It seems like a bad idea to leak to Woj that they're going to decertify if they don't get their 52%.

This sued is irrelevant because if this goes through, the entity they are suing (union) no longer exists. If anything players waiting this long and offering wage cuts of nearly 10% and loss of benefits such as length of contracts, yearly increases, etc show they have being bargaining in good faith.

Secondly there is nothing wrong with union saying if we don't get x, than we will decertify. The reason is because the union exists to benefit the players not the owners. If union and its members decide they can get better deal without the union (in a system without anti-trust exceptions), than its their right to pursue this option.

Owners have no say if the players to be in union or not. Their only say is to offer a good enough deal that players don't want to pursue this option. For instance if they offered 20% of BRI, than 100% of the players would decertify because the alternative is much better. I think the owners are in dangerous zone because the agents/players ego&principle is involved because of the way owners have being taken a hard-line position. If 51% of the players feel this, than the owners and us fans are in trouble because this will take turn for the worse.

[RapTelligence]

Without union the league would spend more than 57% of BRI. I think this is almost given. Otherwise why do think the owners are pushing for hard cap/restrictive system and offer the players less share of the BRI? Technically under the current system no owners is forced to spend anything more than 75% of salary cap ($43M) and only 2 teams were under this last year (both rebuilding).

Secondly the other misconception is that without union high end players would be making all the money and the low end players would be lucky to play for $200K. This is not untrue and you can just look at the sports leagues without any union. For instances look at the English Premier League. Sure the high end players are getting paid but the last guy on the team is still a millionaire.

The same market forces that will cause bidding wars for the likes of Lebron/Kobe/Howard/etc will happen with the mid-low end players. Technically teams could offer minimum salary to the MLE players, but they don't because another team is willing to pay them higher wage. Right there is restrictive system in which only few teams are able to bid on the services of players. Without this ALL 30 teams will be bidding for FA.

The problem for the players under this system is that this model is unsustainable and risky. Many owners, especially the cheap/small markets that are forcing unions hand will suffer and become irrelevant, and possibly bankrupt. Thus overall revenue might take hit and as such players share of this.

It will create 2 to 4 super teams and the others will serve as a farm system to the super teams. Like the La Liga. Problem is fan support will tank too.

[lucky777s]

I thought the league had sued the PA on the grounds that they were bargaining unfairly. It seems like a bad idea to leak to Woj that they're going to decertify if they don't get their 52%.

The timing was certainly not good for the players. The judge had just stated that the nba was using a 'what if' scenario about the decertification that may not be justified. This conference call totally supports the owners position that the union is using decert as some kind of hammer to force them into a bad deal.


The problem with decert for the owners is that they can't be seen to be colluding on salaries as that would not be legal to have an informal arrangement designed to keep individuals salaries down.

But if the owners were smart and united they could probably break the backs of the players pretty easily within a month or two. Start signing all the low and mid tier guys to small contracts, less than previously getting, and just wait out the star players who really have nowhere else to go to make their 20 mill per season. No chance they want to live and play in China or Europe full time.

[ranger001]

Decertification will cause problems for the players also. No draft and no salary cap means small markets team cannot compete. Without any promising rookies and with no chance to win fans will stop going to teams in small markets and a few teams will fold. That means less jobs for players.

The big name players will get more money but everyone else will get less.

[ATLTimekeeper]

I thought the league had sued the PA on the grounds that they were bargaining unfairly. It seems like a bad idea to leak to Woj that they're going to decertify if they don't get their 52%.

This sued is irrelevant because if this goes through, the entity they are suing (union) no longer exists. If anything players waiting this long and offering wage cuts of nearly 10% and loss of benefits such as length of contracts, yearly increases, etc show they have being bargaining in good faith.

Secondly there is nothing wrong with union saying if we don't get x, than we will decertify. The reason is because the union exists to benefit the players not the owners. If union and its members decide they can get better deal without the union (in a system without anti-trust exceptions), than its their right to pursue this option.

Owners have no say if the players to be in union or not. Their only say is to offer a good enough deal that players don't want to pursue this option. For instance if they offered 20% of BRI, than 100% of the players would decertify because the alternative is much better. I think the owners are in dangerous zone because the agents/players ego&principle is involved because of the way owners have being taken a hard-line position. If 51% of the players feel this, than the owners and us fans are in trouble because this will take turn for the worse.

I'm pretty sure there is. The union can't use decertification as a negotiating tactic. That's bargaining in bad faith. The union can't say we won't be a union if we don't get what we want. Just like the league can't say, you take X% or we'll stop being a league.

The players can decertify on their own, but that can't be an initiative from the union. Have you read the Scott McCann article yet? He does a good job of describing the risks/rewards of the tactic.

[RapTelligence]

Just a couple of questions

1) Before filing for decertification would they have to ask the 450 players to vote on it?
2) If they file for decertification would not all the current contracts become null and void?

[ATLTimekeeper]

Just a couple of questions

1) Before filing for decertification would they have to ask the 450 players to vote on it?
2) If they file for decertification would not all the current contracts become null and void?

1)Yeah they have to petition for a vote on decertification first, which requires 30% of the players, then they have to vote and get a majority.
2)No. The NBA, in their lawsuit against the PA, wants to nullify all current contracts, but it's seen as a pipe-dream.

[RapTelligence]

Just a couple of questions

1) Before filing for decertification would they have to ask the 450 players to vote on it?
2) If they file for decertification would not all the current contracts become null and void?

1)Yeah they have to petition for a vote on decertification first, which requires 30% of the players, then they have to vote and get a majority.
2)No. The NBA, in their lawsuit against the PA, wants to nullify all current contracts, but it's seen as a pipe-dream.

1) Looks unlikely if every player knows what they are getting into.
2) The top players don't have to take any risk if their current contracts are valid.

[ranger001]

Just a couple of questions

1) Before filing for decertification would they have to ask the 450 players to vote on it?
2) If they file for decertification would not all the current contracts become null and void?

1)Yeah they have to petition for a vote on decertification first, which requires 30% of the players, then they have to vote and get a majority.

Interestingly Lawrence Katz, the lawyer handling the players suit with the NLRB, said that the NLRB would block the vote on decertification until the current petition is resolved.

Katz says the union's pending complaint against the NBA would make decertifying an impossibility.

"The vote on decertification is a vote controlled and run by the NLRB," he said. "In my opinion, they could not process the petition for a vote because of the pending petition."

2)No. The NBA, in their lawsuit against the PA, wants to nullify all current contracts, but it's seen as a pipe-dream.

In a court of law nothing is certain. The court could well agree with the NBA that the numerous references in the UPC to the CBA makes the UPC invalid without a CBA.

[dacrusha]

But if the owners were smart and united they could probably break the backs of the players pretty easily within a month or two. Start signing all the low and mid tier guys to small contracts, less than previously getting, and just wait out the star players who really have nowhere else to go to make their 20 mill per season. No chance they want to live and play in China or Europe full time.

The owners can't help spending wildly even with a cap and luxury tax restrictions.

Once the floodgates are opened and a free market prevails without these restrictions, the top 10 revenue generating teams in the league will snatch up each and every star player to huge contracts commiserate with their star status.

If a money making machine like MLSE has a $90 million budget to put together a contender constructed to go deep into the playoffs (a guarantee of 6-8 home playoff dates), they'll have NO problem signing 3 $25 million stars and then fill out 12 spots left on the roster with the remaining $15 million.

[knickerbocker2k2]

The players can decertify on their own, but that can't be an initiative from the union. Have you read the Scott McCann article yet? He does a good job of describing the risks/rewards of the tactic.

Let me rephrase. My point is that its inherit in these negotiations that the deal owner present to the union must be at least perceived to be better by its members than the deal they would get without the union. I don't think the union management would push for decertification out of their own self interest and from the reports Hunter seems to be busy looking after his own interests. It is agents and players pushing this.

If a money making machine like MLSE has a $90 million budget to put together a contender constructed to go deep into the playoffs (a guarantee of 6-8 home playoff dates), they'll have NO problem signing 3 $25 million stars and then fill out 12 spots left on the roster with the remaining $15 million.

The problem with this is that there are 30 teams. There are not enough superstars worth $25M. Maybe 5-10 at the most. Plus you would have the same problems with low-mid players. Toronto in this case would be competition for the services of those "filler" players with other teams. Why would they come to toronto when they can play for same wages in LA/NY? Their still will be competition for those mid-low level players.

What drives up the price is supply/demand. In this new system nothing changes about demand. Teams will still require quality players. What will be different is that this time ALL 3 teams will be competing for these players and they'll be no restriction on any of the teams. Lakers paid $20M in luxury tax in addition to their salary of $90M, for total of $110M. So in new system they would have an additional $20M they can spend in salary, plus anything else they want to spend without worrying about another amount in tax. This is the same for like 10 clubs. They would be all competing for these complimentary players drive up the salaries.

[ranger001]

Just because there is competition does not mean all salaries go through the roof. Capital is not unlimited.

The top tier players will make a lot more, middle and lower tiers will make less. A guy now making the minimum is going to get less. Guys making the midlevel are also going to get less.