Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread II

[ranger001]

But you can't just look at the percentage and say the nfl is better. You have to factor in the costs of running the league. e.g. due to the popularity of the the NFL the marketing costs are likely a lot lower, tickets sell themselves. The NFL also has a lot higher revenue, so 50% in the NFL is not the same as 50% in the NBA.

[floppymoose]

I looked around for some sources on the actual percentages of revenues going to player salaries during the last decade. (And for the love of god, please don't go off in the weeds about non-guaranteed contracts - this is the amount players were _actually paid_).

This is the best I've got at the moment:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... ayers.aspx

Unless you think those figures are wrong, 47% would be a big outlier. There would need to be some explanation of *why* they nba can't operate profitably unless the split is that low, and that explanation would have to be a heck of a lot more transparent than "we say we're losing money" for it to be believable.

47% is so outlandish that it simply presents a high standard for the burden of proof. Telling me that the other leagues are not the same is not going to cut it. Not when the NBA operated with a split similar to the other leagues for so long.

[Rapsfan07]

Ive been saying this for a long time. The player are going to be taking it in the ass because they wanted the best of both world. What they should have done was keep their numbers where it was (53% Players before the Cohen intervention) and parked it there and give up territory on the system. As a fan, that would be better because then a system that allowed competitiveness (if that's what the league's true intentions are) could be created. Now obviously they can't give TOO much on the system (non-guaranteed contracts - YIKES!) But i think the owners could live with a 53 or 52/47 or 48 split if the players were open to constructing a Flex Cap system for example.

At the same time though, as a player I think 47% is crazy. At the end of the day, they are the talent and should either break even or make a little bit more. If I'm them, I move back up to 52 or 53 and offer a different cap system of some kind.

But at the end of the day, I don't think they'll leave the table without 50 or 51%. I would just fight it out in court if the league doesn't wanna co-operate with that.

[ronleroy]

well see how it goes, if the owners are in it for the money or for competitiveness, if they are for the money, then screw them too. Right now with the mid level is still unfair to smaller markets.

[knickerbocker2k2]

Do people realize that the current CBA doesn't force guarantee contracts and allows non-guaranteed contracts? The only guaranteed contracts are the first year of retain of bird right players and 1st round rookie picks and these are set to the advantage of the owners.

The reason you get guaranteed contracts is because of supply/demand. If they team A doesn't want to give them, than they'll find someone willing to pay them. NFL is same except bonus are extra factor.

Secondly after the details of the current negotiations, how can anyone believe owners are fighting for fans/competitive nature of the league? They are willing to accept the current system if they get more $$$. In addition even the 50% offer, with owners system, is really about restricting player movement by rigging the supply/demand nature of the system, and allow owners to pay less per player. Again all about the $$$ and nothing ground breaking about creating new system to benefit the fan.

[Indeed]

But you can't just look at the percentage and say the nfl is better. You have to factor in the costs of running the league. e.g. due to the popularity of the the NFL the marketing costs are likely a lot lower, tickets sell themselves. The NFL also has a lot higher revenue, so 50% in the NFL is not the same as 50% in the NBA.

Yea, NFL is not a good example, I think NHL is a closer one.
Both use HRR and BRI to measure the percentage, which motivates owner to invest on other non-hockey and non-basketball area (building arena and renting them out).
They are also very similar in terms of expenses, play in the winter, and etc.

However, why NHL is making less, but paying players for more (more than NBA)? Would really like to know what other expenses that are so different between these two leagues (and NBA has no farm team system, thus less coaching staff).

[ranger001]

I looked around for some sources on the actual percentages of revenues going to player salaries during the last decade. (And for the love of god, please don't go off in the weeds about non-guaranteed contracts - this is the amount players were _actually paid_).

This is the best I've got at the moment:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... ayers.aspx

Unless you think those figures are wrong, 47% would be a big outlier. There would need to be some explanation of *why* they nba can't operate profitably unless the split is that low, and that explanation would have to be a heck of a lot more transparent than "we say we're losing money" for it to be believable.

47% is so outlandish that it simply presents a high standard for the burden of proof. Telling me that the other leagues are not the same is not going to cut it. Not when the NBA operated with a split similar to the other leagues for so long.

I just said that 50% in the NFL is not the same as 50% in the NBA and you go say the same thing about trying to compare the NFL and NBA.
From the very same article you linked to:-
"The different revenue pools for those leagues make comparisons difficult"
The owners are willing to go to 50% with a hard cap btw.

[Orsk]

Do people realize that the current CBA doesn't force guarantee contracts and allows non-guaranteed contracts? The only guaranteed contracts are the first year of retain of bird right players and 1st round rookie picks and these are set to the advantage of the owners.

The reason you get guaranteed contracts is because of supply/demand. If they team A doesn't want to give them, than they'll find someone willing to pay them. NFL is same except bonus are extra factor.

Secondly after the details of the current negotiations, how can anyone believe owners are fighting for fans/competitive nature of the league? They are willing to accept the current system if they get more $$$. In addition even the 50% offer, with owners system, is really about restricting player movement by rigging the supply/demand nature of the system, and allow owners to pay less per player. Again all about the $$$ and nothing ground breaking about creating new system to benefit the fan.

You do realize that the owners DO want a more competitive system and it does benefit the owners greatly. With a more competitive system, smaller teams have a better chance at winning and by default are easier to support. The big teams make their money from things like tv contracts, not by shared nba revenue. If your team can be competitive year after year, and there happens to be a league where any team could win year in and year out of course they owners will make more money!

[Twinkie defense]

In the NFL only two teams lost money last year, and their combined losses were under $10 mil. That is much better than the NBA financials, even if you take the players word on the League's losses. In other words, the NFL can afford to give players a bigger piece of the pie.

Also, it's not only how much money you spend, but how much impact you get from that money. If you're paying Eddy Curry $11.5 mil, that's a lot worse than spending that same money on Steve Nash. In the NFL, you can tell Eddy Curry to go to hell - rightly so, I would say. But in the NBA, you're stuck with him.

I think the players would be in a better negotiating place if they could recognize the reality of systemic problems such as this.

[knickerbocker2k2]

You do realize that the owners DO want a more competitive system and it does benefit the owners greatly. With a more competitive system, smaller teams have a better chance at winning and by default are easier to support. The big teams make their money from things like tv contracts, not by shared nba revenue. If your team can be competitive year after year, and there happens to be a league where any team could win year in and year out of course they owners will make more money!

Are you sure about that? Why are the owners willing to concede to system nearly identical to the current if they get 47% of BRI? All this will do is take 10% from players and give to owners. You and I will not see any difference, just owners will have more $$ in their bank account.

Secondly not every owner can be winner. The nature of sports is there are winners/losers. Small teams are not winning because they are small markets. They are on the whole losing because of incompetence. Small markets can compete if they have competent management.

[dacrusha]

Do people realize that the current CBA doesn't force guarantee contracts and allows non-guaranteed contracts? The only guaranteed contracts are the first year of retain of bird right players and 1st round rookie picks and these are set to the advantage of the owners.

The reason you get guaranteed contracts is because of supply/demand. If they team A doesn't want to give them, than they'll find someone willing to pay them. NFL is same except bonus are extra factor.

Secondly after the details of the current negotiations, how can anyone believe owners are fighting for fans/competitive nature of the league? They are willing to accept the current system if they get more $$$. In addition even the 50% offer, with owners system, is really about restricting player movement by rigging the supply/demand nature of the system, and allow owners to pay less per player. Again all about the $$$ and nothing ground breaking about creating new system to benefit the fan.

You do realize that the owners DO want a more competitive system and it does benefit the owners greatly. With a more competitive system, smaller teams have a better chance at winning and by default are easier to support. The big teams make their money from things like tv contracts, not by shared nba revenue. If your team can be competitive year after year, and there happens to be a league where any team could win year in and year out of course they owners will make more money!

A competitive system in the NBA is and always will be a complete myth.

The NBA was wildly profitable in the 80s 90s and 00s where there would only be 2, maybe 3 teams in realistic contention for a championship in any given season.

In fact, going forward (and completely regardless of what the new CBA holds for the next few years) there will still be only handful of teams that will be competitive (ie: those teams that have Durant, Rose, LBJ, Kobe and whoever else is a top 5 player in the league).

Teams like Charlotte, Toronto and Memphis can forget about any kind of championship aspirations unless they draft a once-a-generation type player like OKC did and that's the truth.

[Indeed]

Do people realize that the current CBA doesn't force guarantee contracts and allows non-guaranteed contracts? The only guaranteed contracts are the first year of retain of bird right players and 1st round rookie picks and these are set to the advantage of the owners.

The reason you get guaranteed contracts is because of supply/demand. If they team A doesn't want to give them, than they'll find someone willing to pay them. NFL is same except bonus are extra factor.

Secondly after the details of the current negotiations, how can anyone believe owners are fighting for fans/competitive nature of the league? They are willing to accept the current system if they get more $$$. In addition even the 50% offer, with owners system, is really about restricting player movement by rigging the supply/demand nature of the system, and allow owners to pay less per player. Again all about the $$$ and nothing ground breaking about creating new system to benefit the fan.

You do realize that the owners DO want a more competitive system and it does benefit the owners greatly. With a more competitive system, smaller teams have a better chance at winning and by default are easier to support. The big teams make their money from things like tv contracts, not by shared nba revenue. If your team can be competitive year after year, and there happens to be a league where any team could win year in and year out of course they owners will make more money!

A competitive system in the NBA is and always will be a complete myth.

The NBA was wildly profitable in the 80s 90s and 00s where there would only be 2, maybe 3 teams in realistic contention for a championship in any given season.

In fact, going forward (and completely regardless of what the new CBA holds for the next few years) there will still be only handful of teams that will be competitive (ie: those teams that have Durant, Rose, LBJ, Kobe and whoever else is a top 5 player in the league).

Teams like Charlotte, Toronto and Memphis can forget about any kind of championship aspirations unless they draft a once-a-generation type player like OKC did and that's the truth.

And being loyal to the club. I would prefer Robinson/Duncan and what they did to San Antonio.

[Orsk]

Being competitive doesn't mean that any team can win the championship, it means that all teams are CLOSE to one another and when they DO meet it could go either way or at least be competitive. As you said, certain teams will always be slightly better than others, but there is no reason that there should be teams that year in and year out win 50+ games and then others that win less than 20, that is too much of a gap for all teams to be sustainably profitable.

Yes I agree that most of the problem is about poor management etc, but a system can be made to stop those teams from being able to make those poor decisions.

*Not saying that we will see a system like that, but that doesn't mean it cant be done.

[S.W.A.N]

Well its getting down to crunch time.

50 players (non of the union reps involved) hosted a conference call with an anti-trust lawyer today.

They basically saying if the union doesn't get a deal done soon with 52 percent or 50 with favourable system then they going to decertify.

So either a deal gets done within a week or season is lost and possibly more.


High stake game of chicken just got very serious. If either side blinks it could be the end of season.
Union knows they probably can ratify a 50/50 deal if they get some consessions on system, but are owners willing to give any.

I glad the players finally applying some pressure, now we shall see the real deadline negotiations that we have been waiting for.

[The Duke]

I just dont see a hard cap going to happen. Hard Cap is taking away advantages of choice for teams (even if only under 10 would consider taking it) ... Why? ... the more influential owners (big market) would be the ones possibily wanting to exceed cap.

The "power" owners likely wont prefer a hard cap compared to "non power owners"

Hence to them I think they'd prefer 50% (Owners) split + small system changes over ~48% (Owners) + major system changes.

[freshest1]

This is what I do not really "get" with desertification: what is stopping the league from collectively writing their own rules for all labor/ player contracts; for example, player x is a top tier franchise player and hypothetically is asking to receive a 30 million per year salary. The league collectively laughs and says, sorry we're not going to allow any team pay more than 10 million per season for any single player. Furthermore, no team can exceed 40 million in player salary, no guaranteed contracts beyond 3 years. The league has a monopoly without an NBAPA. Sure they could lose players to European leagues, but it seems unlikely given the history of players going over seas. Let's face it the NBA is a false economy, without a strong union the players should get screwed harder, not the other way around.

[S.W.A.N]

This is what I do not really "get" with desertification: what is stopping the league from collectively writing their own rules for all labor/ player contracts; for example, player x is a top tier franchise player and hypothetically is asking to receive a 30 million per year salary. The league collectively laughs and says, sorry we're not going allow any team pay more than 10 million per season for any single player and no team can exceed 40 million in player salary period, no guaranteed contracts. I mean, the league has a monopoly without an NBAPA. Sure they could lose player to European leagues but it seems unlikely given the hisptory of players going over seas. Let's face it the NBA is a false economy without a strong union the players should get screwed harder, not the other way around.

The nba is a monopoly. One of the few allowed in north america.They are able to maintain this status and avoid normal labor laws because they have an agreement in place with the union. The american and canadian governments recognize this agreement and give the league special status.

Without the special status, the league no longer has the right to act as a monolopy. This means labour laws apply, and it becomes a huge legal headache.

Its a pardoras box of issues that hopefully stays closed. But it also is the only weapon the players have against owners.

Up to this point the players have been in a knife fight with the owners. They just pulled out a grenade and said stop cutting me or I pull the pin.

Owners have a choice. Put the knife away and be happy with the win, or keep trying to get a little more and hope players aren't stupid enough to pull the pin.

[freshest1]

Thanks for the explanation. I was always a little unclear on this issue. I always thought that the players leverage was their unity and talent --an obvious scarce commodity (and nearly absent on this roster). Talent dictates that a handful of players (or even just one) can turn the course of one team's financial destiny. Thus, their is an inherent need to overpay players to be competitive. I believe what you are stating is that if the players decertify the league (or teams, rather) must act like individual companies and not work collectively against the players to their economic advantage or risk being condemned monopolistic .

[roundhead0]

I looked around for some sources on the actual percentages of revenues going to player salaries during the last decade. (And for the love of god, please don't go off in the weeds about non-guaranteed contracts - this is the amount players were _actually paid_).

This is the best I've got at the moment:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... ayers.aspx

Unless you think those figures are wrong, 47% would be a big outlier. There would need to be some explanation of *why* they nba can't operate profitably unless the split is that low, and that explanation would have to be a heck of a lot more transparent than "we say we're losing money" for it to be believable.

47% is so outlandish that it simply presents a high standard for the burden of proof. Telling me that the other leagues are not the same is not going to cut it. Not when the NBA operated with a split similar to the other leagues for so long.

The most relevant comparison is probably to the NHL. Play in many of the same arenas. Play about the same number of games. Have about the same amount of travel. If anything you would expect the NHL to be more expensive to operate a team because you have more players (and thus more trainers, etc) to deal with and transport around. And yet the NHL players get 55% or so.

Of course, many of the NHL teams are in serious trouble, losing $10-$20 million each year.

One big discrepancy is that not all the leagues may shareable "revenue" the same way. So if the other leagues count fewer things as part of the shareable revenue, then the players could get a higher percentage of it but the owners are no worse off. It's also possible that salaries aside from players could be higher in the NBA. Are coaches paid more? Are GMs paid more? I really don't know.

I guessing the NBA as a whole can make money at their old split of revenue, but not enough (and by not enough teams) to make it worthwhile to stick to the old deal. The smaller teams seem pretty adamant at getting big cuts.

[Rapsfan07]

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?