owners fault not players

[SO_MONEY]

Dboys- in the NFL the players got 63% of the revenues (after the owners took 1 billion off the top) and the teams were still successful. The NHL sat out a year to get revenues and now the players get 57% and the league is financially sound. To me its pretty clear that the problem isn't the 57% of revenue that players get, its bad management from the NBA owners and GM's thats causing the problem.

This is completely ignoring the fact players should be entitled to little to no percentage of BRI, with the exclusion of situations where a players name or likeness are used to generate revenue in which case players should get a percentage if not a high one of that specific source. General functions of one's job i.e. being an ambassador to of the game and playing the game it's self is not meant to indirectly raise funds, as these other secondary sources are, it is the product and players are being compensated in the form of salary. The general public has no access to secondary revenue generating mechanisms of their employer's and therefore players should have no sense of entitlement.

[killbuckner]

The general public has no access to secondary revenue generating mechanisms of their employer's and therefore players should have no sense of entitlement.

Then the players should decertify the union and just go to the highest bidder. The league gives the players a guaranteed percentage of BRI in order to convince them to agree to all the restrictions that they don't want but might overall be good for the game. (Salary cap, luxury tax, draft, max salary, maximum contract length) Otherwise Players should be free to sign with whoever will offer them the most and it means that teams can offer them as much as they think its in their best interest to without worrying about the cap.

[SO_MONEY]

The general public has no access to secondary revenue generating mechanisms of their employer's and therefore players should have no sense of entitlement.

Then the players should decertify the union and just go to the highest bidder. The league gives the players a guaranteed percentage of BRI in order to convince them to agree to all the restrictions that they don't want but might overall be good for the game. (Salary cap, luxury tax, draft, max salary, maximum contract length) Otherwise Players should be free to sign with whoever will offer them the most and it means that teams can offer them as much as they think its in their best interest to without worrying about the cap.

Sorry, but I was a member of a union for around 15 years, and during this time I saw no related income from my employer. In our contract our salary was controlled as well as more practical "real life" concessions were made. I have no sense of entitlement to these funds either!

What you bring up is a good point, this is the exact reason contracts would be voided in the absence of a union; a result of decertifing.

I do have to think the NBA is looking into a singular entity approach if they are talking about voiding contracts which means there would be no highest bidder as there would only be one, as well as other non-player friendly stipulations which would come along with this structure. Players would still make far more money than playing overseas, but if they didn't like the rules and terms put forth by the NBA they could strike or ratify a union and negotiate directly with the NBA. Either way it looks as if the NBA has done its due diligence and is holding firm on the belief major changes are needed.

[killbuckner]

Sorry, but I was a member of a union for around 15 years, and during this time I saw no related income from my employer.

Sure you did. However successful your employer was that was all part of the pool that they could use to pay you. Then they offered you what they thought you were worth and you were free to accept it or to look to someone else for a better offer. You were free to go out and give the best offer you could, and your employer was free to give you the offer that they thought was best for their company.

Its not like the players were getting their salaries and then ALSO getting a percentage of BRI. The owners were making the offer that they thought was best for the franchise despite the limitations on the size of the offer based on things like the cap and tax.

do have to think the NBA is looking into a singular entity approach if they are talking about voiding contracts which means there would be no highest bidder as there would only be one, as well as other non-player friendly stipulations which would come along with this structure.

The owners have for years wished they could be considered a single entity but the courts have REPEATEDLY shot them down. THe american needle case recently went all the way to the supreme court and it was unanimously ruled that the NFL teams weren't a single entity.

[SO_MONEY]

Sorry, but I was a member of a union for around 15 years, and during this time I saw no related income from my employer.

Sure you did. However successful your employer was that was all part of the pool that they could use to pay you. Then they offered you what they thought you were worth and you were free to accept it or to look to someone else for a better offer. You were free to go out and give the best offer you could, and your employer was free to give you the offer that they thought was best for their company.

Its not like the players were getting their salaries and then ALSO getting a percentage of BRI. The owners were making the offer that they thought was best for the franchise despite the limitations on the size of the offer based on things like the cap and tax.

do have to think the NBA is looking into a singular entity approach if they are talking about voiding contracts which means there would be no highest bidder as there would only be one, as well as other non-player friendly stipulations which would come along with this structure.

The owners have for years wished they could be considered a single entity but the courts have REPEATEDLY shot them down. THe american needle case recently went all the way to the supreme court and it was unanimously ruled that the NFL teams weren't a single entity.

1) That is the point the NBA doesn't have to offer BRI as it is not in there best interest and are better off entering into a system like my employer where they compensate the employees at a rate commensurate with their worth.

2) As currently constructed the NBA isn't a singular entity (mostly), but they could restructure to become one at which point cases based on the past tense hold no validity.

[killbuckner]

1) That is the point the NBA doesn't have to offer BRI as it is not in there best interest and are better off entering into a system like my employer where they compensate the employees at a rate commensurate with their worth.

So you should want the players to decertify- they get only what the teams think they are worth. Of course that means no cap, no luxury tax, no max salary, no maximum contract length, no draft. The team would simply offer the player what they thought they were worth. DO you honestly think that salaries would go DOWN?

2) As currently constructed the NBA isn't a singular entity (mostly), but they could restructure to become one at which point cases based on the past tense hold no validity.

If they got rid of all the owners and had the league own every team they MIGHT be able to get away with being called a single entity. This is the model that Major League Soccer took but after a long contentious labor dispute it didn't end up going to court. The NBA as you know it could never claim to be a single entity which is why the owners are so scared about decertification.

[SO_MONEY]

2) As currently constructed the NBA isn't a singular entity (mostly), but they could restructure to become one at which point cases based on the past tense hold no validity.

If they got rid of all the owners and had the league own every team they MIGHT be able to get away with being called a single entity. This is the model that Major League Soccer took but after a long contentious labor dispute it didn't end up going to court. The NBA as you know it could never claim to be a single entity which is why the owners are so scared about decertification.

Nope,

Because ownership groups are present and as this ownership would be converted into shares in the NBA each owner could then litigate under anti-trust law, this would promote competitive balance through the draft and free-agency.

The following is the ownership structure of MLS and is the reason why litigation wasn't successful, granted concessions were made to mitigate costs of a protracted legal battle. Note: MLS "owns" one team.

Ownership

MLS operates under a single-entity structure in which teams are centrally controlled and owned by the league.[7] Each team has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league. In order to keep costs under control, revenues are shared throughout the league, player contracts are negotiated by the league, and ultimately players are contracted not with individual teams but with the league itself. The league fought a bitter legal battle with its players over its economic system, but this was eventually resolved with the players gaining some improved benefits in return for accepting the single entity structure. A court had also ruled that even absent their collective bargaining agreement, players could opt to play in other leagues if they were unsatisfied.

The league's cost-controlling measures have attracted new ownership that have injected more money into the league, improving it and focusing the league's resources on fewer clubs. Examples include the Anschutz Entertainment Group's sale of the MetroStars to Red Bull, for an "excess of $100 million," according to the New York Times. Commissioner Garber said to the Los Angeles Times that, "the sale was part of a plan to have AEG decrease its holdings in MLS. We're pushing Hunt Sports to do the same thing."

Commissioner Garber has stated that having multiple clubs owned by a single owner was a necessity in the first 10 years of MLS, but now that the league appears to be on the brink of overall profitability and has significant expansion plans, he wants each club to have a distinct owner. In order to help bring this about, the league is now giving more incentive to be an individual club owner, with all owners now having the rights to a certain number of players they develop through their club's academy system each year, sharing the profits of Soccer United Marketing, and being able to sell individual club jersey sponsorships.

At one time AEG owned six clubs in MLS, and have since sold the Colorado Rapids, the MetroStars, D.C. United and the Chicago Fire to new owners. AEG's remaining teams are the Los Angeles Galaxy and the Houston Dynamo.[8] The other major owner-investor in MLS has been Hunt Sports, which owns the Columbus Crew and FC Dallas, having sold the Kansas City Wizards to a local ownership group in 2006. The league now has 17 owners for its 19 clubs (including the Vancouver and Portland teams entering in 2011 and the Montreal team that is confirmed to be entering in 2012).

[/quote]

[killbuckner]

Uhh.. thats what I said- that the MLS built their league in a specific way trying to get single entity status. As far as I know the players never filed suit against Major league soccer. But once there are individual owners then the single entity status is not at all a sure thing and the NBA isn't anywhere CLOSE to the line.

If the union were to decertify the owners could try and put those rules into place- once the courts ruled against the NBA then they would have to pay TRIPLE damages on any money they saved. The NBA would have to significantly alter the league to even TRY and get this status and even then its no sure thing that the courts woudl agree that they were a single entity.

[SO_MONEY]

Uhh.. thats what I said- that the MLS built their league in a specific way trying to get single entity status. As far as I know the players never filed suit against Major league soccer. But once there are individual owners then the single entity status is not at all a sure thing and the NBA isn't anywhere CLOSE to the line.

If the union were to decertify the owners could try and put those rules into place- once the courts ruled against the NBA then they would have to pay TRIPLE damages on any money they saved. The NBA would have to significantly alter the league to even TRY and get this status and even then its no sure thing that the courts woudl agree that they were a single entity.

Not entirely true...

Technically, ownership is converted into shares of the NBA or in this case the MLS so restructuring is more than possible.

Secondly, players couldn't sue the NBA for TRIPLE damages as they would no longer be guaranteed employment as contracts would be nullified during decertification and the NBA cannot be legally forced to conduct business, and when they finally do it would be with the legal research of how to properly restructure to not open themselves up to litigation.

[killbuckner]

Secondly, players couldn't sue the NBA for TRIPLE damages as they would no longer be guaranteed employment as contracts would be nullified during decertification and the NBA cannot be legally forced to conduct business, and when they finally do it would be with the legal research of how to properly restructure to not open themselves up to litigation.

If the union were to decertify then the NBA could not lock out the players anymore. To do so would be a pretty clear anti-trust violation. They could try to and use the single entity defense but then once again they would be liable for triple damages if they were ruled against in court.

But no need to get caught up in a hypothetical of what would happen if the NBA bought every single NBA team- as currently constitituted there is no chance in hell that the NBA could use a single entity defense.

THink about it- if they were allowed to they could arbitrarily set a 20 million dollar salary cap, a 7 million dollar max salary, and have no free agency and there would be nothing the players could do about it. The courts are simply not going to give the owners that kind of leverage.

[DBoys]

THink about it- if they were allowed to they could arbitrarily set a 20 million dollar salary cap, a 7 million dollar max salary, and have no free agency and there would be nothing the players could do about it. The courts are simply not going to give the owners that kind of leverage.

You're thinking as an advocate, not as a thinker.

If I want to start DBPBL (D Boys Professional Basketball League) where all players contract with me (my league) and are then assigned to various teams, that's a single entity. And there's no way I'd be required to do it otherwise. Within DBPBL I can hire managers for each of my franchises, who can contract $X of player talent for their franchise. I could even offer those managers a share of the business in exchange for a financial investment, if I wanted. Nothing illegal in any of that.

What's being discussed here is simply an expanded version of that concept.

[SO_MONEY]

Secondly, players couldn't sue the NBA for TRIPLE damages as they would no longer be guaranteed employment as contracts would be nullified during decertification and the NBA cannot be legally forced to conduct business, and when they finally do it would be with the legal research of how to properly restructure to not open themselves up to litigation.

If the union were to decertify then the NBA could not lock out the players anymore. To do so would be a pretty clear anti-trust violation. They could try to and use the single entity defense but then once again they would be liable for triple damages if they were ruled against in court.

But no need to get caught up in a hypothetical of what would happen if the NBA bought every single NBA team- as currently constitituted there is no chance in hell that the NBA could use a single entity defense.

THink about it- if they were allowed to they could arbitrarily set a 20 million dollar salary cap, a 7 million dollar max salary, and have no free agency and there would be nothing the players could do about it. The courts are simply not going to give the owners that kind of leverage.

Contracts would be void and the government couldn't force the NBA to conduct business therefore they couldn't file suit and couldn't claim damages as they would be able to play elsewhere, and even if they couldn't, to prove because you can play basketball you are entitled to make a living at it and force the existence of employment is Utopian.

I can play the national anthem with my armpits this doesn't guarantee employment or I will make money doing it.

Think about it...

[killbuckner]

Contracts would be void and the government couldn't force the NBA to conduct business therefore they couldn't file suit and couldn't claim damages as they would be able to play elsewhere, and even if they couldn't, to prove because you can play basketball you are entitled to make a living at it and force the existence of employment is Utopian.

IF the NBA wants to cease business entirely then they certainly can shutdown the league and I agree that the players couldn't do anything about it. Somehow I don't think those owners who paid hundreds of millions for their teams and further hundreds of millions for their stadiums would be OK with eradicating the league just to try and get out of paying Gilbert Arenas his contract.

Though I do still think that the player contracts would be a liability for the league even if it were to shut down. They would have to liquidate team assets to pay off outstanding liabilities.

[SO_MONEY]

Contracts would be void and the government couldn't force the NBA to conduct business therefore they couldn't file suit and couldn't claim damages as they would be able to play elsewhere, and even if they couldn't, to prove because you can play basketball you are entitled to make a living at it and force the existence of employment is Utopian.

IF the NBA wants to cease business entirely then they certainly can shutdown the league and I agree that the players couldn't do anything about it. Somehow I don't think those owners who paid hundreds of millions for their teams and further hundreds of millions for their stadiums would be OK with eradicating the league just to try and get out of paying Gilbert Arenas his contract.

Though I do still think that the player contracts would be a liability for the league even if it were to shut down. They would have to liquidate team assets to pay off outstanding liabilities.

The point is they would only shutdown for a duration as they restructure [singular entity] then the NBA could employ who they choose at rates and under rules which would make the NBA profitable and the players can do nothing about it other than likely take less money to play overseas.

This would be done to not conduct business under a system in which they could be sued and pay triple damages.

[killbuckner]

Once I hear about every owner in the league being bought out by the NBA then I'll start taking the single entity discussion seriously. Until then its a complete non-issue. Maybe the NBA would have been better off going without owners and having the league own every team but thats not anywhere close to what they have now and its not anything close to what the current owners would accept.

[killbuckner]

You're thinking as an advocate, not as a thinker.

If I want to start DBPBL (D Boys Professional Basketball League) where all players contract with me (my league) and are then assigned to various teams, that's a single entity. And there's no way I'd be required to do it otherwise. Within DBPBL I can hire managers for each of my franchises, who can contract $X of player talent for their franchise. I could even offer those managers a share of the business in exchange for a financial investment, if I wanted. Nothing illegal in any of that.

What's being discussed here is simply an expanded version of that concept.

No doubt. A league without owners where the league makes all personnel decisions probably could dictate the terms. But that has nothing at all to do with the situation in the NBA and trying to use an accounting trick wouldn't come close to making it work either.

[SO_MONEY]

Once I hear about every owner in the league being bought out by the NBA then I'll start taking the single entity discussion seriously. Until then its a complete non-issue. Maybe the NBA would have been better off going without owners and having the league own every team but thats not anywhere close to what they have now and its not anything close to what the current owners would accept.

They wouldn't be bought out owners would still "own" and manage the team, but instead of owning the team directly they would be stake or share holders in the NBA...just like MLS, which is anti-trust proof.

[killbuckner]

They wouldn't be bought out owners would still "own" and manage the team, but instead of owning the team directly they would be stake or share holders in the NBA...just like MLS, which is anti-trust proof.

No... not even close. Once again its pretty clear you didn't read that article I sent. Its entirely about whether the MLS would still be considered a single entity in its current form since the american needle case.

[SO_MONEY]

They wouldn't be bought out owners would still "own" and manage the team, but instead of owning the team directly they would be stake or share holders in the NBA...just like MLS, which is anti-trust proof.

No... not even close. Once again its pretty clear you didn't read that article I sent. Its entirely about whether the MLS would still be considered a single entity in its current form since the american needle case.

Read it and inmates don't run the asylum nor does a law article which unintentionally proves my case from prestigious Northern Illinois University have any credence in a court of law... which ruled to the contrary. It is an opinion piece by a law review who may have had guidance on which stance to take, unfortunately, what matters is court rulings and not homework assignments.

[killbuckner]

I welcome you finding any article written since the american needle case that believes the NBA has a legitimate claim to being considered a single entity when it comes to labor law.