ranger001 wrote:Both sides have to be afraid of a decertification. First of all the NLRB is going to block a decertification until the NBPA lawsuit before the NLRB is settled. The players then have to wait 45 days before the decertification vote. After decertification they would file an antitrust lawsuit. The lawsuit then has to be settled and it could take years. During this time they are losing salary.
The midlevel and lower level players are also going to lose salaries if the win the anti trust lawsuit, guys like Lebron will make more and everyone else less. I expect Hunter to fight the decertification.
If the players decertify this means this season is lost. They have about 12 months to sort out the official decertification and the courts. But in the end nothing can stop the players from decertifying.
The league in this scenario can't prevent players from playing next year. How can you lockout players that are not in union? This is unless they decide to close shop and liquidation their assets (do you see this happening?). So the question is what system takes place next season,
1) First thing NBA would decide is if the current contracts are void or not. NBA has threatened decertification would nullify all the contracts. My thinking is this is leverage to scare the players. Do you think most owners would allow this happen? Big markets would be able to retain their players (Kobe staying in LA, Big 3 in Miami, NY, Chicago). Do you think OKC would let Durant out of his contract? Do you think even cheap Sterling wants this so Griffin is FA? Even hardline Cleveland guy do you think he wants lose top 5 draft picks to the open market? How about Sarver losing his only asset in Nash. I think its bluff, but lets assume everyone is FA...
2) Next thing that would need to be sorted is the system in which the teams operate. One scenario is to operate in free market system where there are no restrictions on teams, and they can each operate independily of each other. Obviously in this scenario the big markets will rule the league.
3) Another scenario is in which the league sets its own system. Basically arbitrarily sets the rules such as what players will get as share of BRI, restrictions on FA, etc. This is very dangerous because this would be illegal under anti-trust law. At this point players would sue and although it would take couple of years (remember players would be still playing during this time), they would eventually win. The league would be on the hook for all the supposed loses (what players lose in salary because of this collusion among the owners, in addition to punitive damages ( I think figure I read was 3x). So in the end players would be paid billions in damages down the road. Owners know this so why take this risk?
