League Parity Thought Experiment

[Bensational]

Whole salary cap idea is pretty much outdated ,communist "everybody is the same " mindset.
Only reason why salary cap exist is to prevent superstars to be payed what they would actually be payed without salary cap, so whole idea of salary cap exist to help owners, not players under mask of "equal playfield for everyone".
If it's trully equal playfield for everyone you would though more nba teams actually won more rings, in reality only 5 teams in history won 3 or more rings and same 5 teams hold total of 70% of all championships in 67 yeras old history of a league.

Soccer is most popular game in the world with most money in it and it has no restrictions whatsoever. Ofc some teams dominate all standings, but guess what, it doesn't mean they always win. However, because how expensive players are , lot of teams trade players for literally nothing else but for money, to have enough to buy another , cheaper or younger player.

To me , biggest problem in nba is actually rewarding teams for sucking. Where in other countries bad teams simply fall out to second tear of competition , in nba you get a chance to take most talented young kid as a reward for being trully awful at running your taem. And each and every year whole regular season becomes unwatchble after allstar game because out of 5 starting players, bad teams shut down 6 of them

And you said that removing salary would make megateams only. How is this formula working for nba right now? 3 years in a row same nba finals, this year Cavs and Warriors were 24-1 in playoffs before facing each other . Even if you have 5 megateams it's still 3 megateams more than you have now. Let's not be silly, why Lebron goes to nba finals every year ? Because his teams are really that great? No, not really, if that is a case he would win 7 rings in 8 trips to nba finals, in reality he lost 5 out of 8 times . Why? Because all firepower is on the west and east is complete joke without competition.

no, that's not the reason the salary cap exists. It exists to try and keep a level playing field for the small markets vs the large markets. NY/LA, they cut TV rights deals all the time for extra money, money that Milwaukee, Orlando, Charlotte, OKC, etc cannot get. Why would billionaires buy a franchise without even the hope that they could win a title? They salary cap does not exist just to prevent stars from being paid highly. the reason more teams havent won is you need superstars to win a title and there arent that many to go around. You also need quality people running your organizations and as we've seen, there arent that many of those either to go around. In football or baseball, you have more players, 1 or 2 bad personnel choices dont sink a team. That isnt true with basketball.

I cant speak about soccer, i dont watch it hardly at all. I do know that unlike the NBA where people know different teams with the good players, i can only name probably 3 soccer teams, the ones that seem to have all the money and all the players. Makes you wonder why the owners of any of the other teams with no chance to win bother paying and fielding a team.

If your "angle" of defending salary cap is to say that it stops rich teams to get all the stars, all i can tell you that your angle failed you years ago because nba was always star and Celtics- Lakers centric league. That's why 5 nba teams hold 70% of all rings in league history. Last few years league has never been less competitive than it is right now. How many contenders you have going into 2017-18? One? One and half ?


cap exists just to have imaginative ceiling on owners spending list. That's literally it. Why cap space and it's growth is nowhere near progressive as inflation of money? Why literally each and every nba team has positive net value and it's doubled in last 4 years .
Why somebody like Kobe or Lebron can't make over $35M when we all know that they are worth 3 times as much ? Why each and every superstar is payed more than Nike ,Addias or UA than their basketball team?

It's like you work for company, you are treated as a bad guy if you don't take a paycut ( because your company can't compete with other ) and in same time you make them $600000 a week,and they pay you $6000 a month . That's basically NBA and their relationship with stars in nutshell. And it's so damn important to point out that basketball is 5 on 5 sport where one superstar makes sooo much difference on the floor compared to NFL,soccer, baseball or any other team sport.

( just think about Heat court side tickets and their price in nba finals and compare that to Lebron's $16M salary during that period in Miami, this year guy payed court side two tickets for $133K just for game 5 of nba finals, now count all court side seats, and do the math with best of 7 format )

But doesn't revenue sharing offset the imbalance? That's the equivalent of the players having equity in the league and it's profits.

[KingRobb02]

no, that's not the reason the salary cap exists. It exists to try and keep a level playing field for the small markets vs the large markets. NY/LA, they cut TV rights deals all the time for extra money, money that Milwaukee, Orlando, Charlotte, OKC, etc cannot get. Why would billionaires buy a franchise without even the hope that they could win a title? They salary cap does not exist just to prevent stars from being paid highly. the reason more teams havent won is you need superstars to win a title and there arent that many to go around. You also need quality people running your organizations and as we've seen, there arent that many of those either to go around. In football or baseball, you have more players, 1 or 2 bad personnel choices dont sink a team. That isnt true with basketball.

I cant speak about soccer, i dont watch it hardly at all. I do know that unlike the NBA where people know different teams with the good players, i can only name probably 3 soccer teams, the ones that seem to have all the money and all the players. Makes you wonder why the owners of any of the other teams with no chance to win bother paying and fielding a team.

If your "angle" of defending salary cap is to say that it stops rich teams to get all the stars, all i can tell you that your angle failed you years ago because nba was always star and Celtics- Lakers centric league. That's why 5 nba teams hold 70% of all rings in league history. Last few years league has never been less competitive than it is right now. How many contenders you have going into 2017-18? One? One and half ?


cap exists just to have imaginative ceiling on owners spending list. That's literally it. Why cap space and it's growth is nowhere near progressive as inflation of money? Why literally each and every nba team has positive net value and it's doubled in last 4 years .
Why somebody like Kobe or Lebron can't make over $35M when we all know that they are worth 3 times as much ? Why each and every superstar is payed more than Nike ,Addias or UA than their basketball team?

It's like you work for company, you are treated as a bad guy if you don't take a paycut ( because your company can't compete with other ) and in same time you make them $600000 a week,and they pay you $6000 a month . That's basically NBA and their relationship with stars in nutshell. And it's so damn important to point out that basketball is 5 on 5 sport where one superstar makes sooo much difference on the floor compared to NFL,soccer, baseball or any other team sport.

( just think about Heat court side tickets and their price in nba finals and compare that to Lebron's $16M salary during that period in Miami, this year guy payed court side two tickets for $133K just for game 5 of nba finals, now count all court side seats, and do the math with best of 7 format )

But doesn't revenue sharing offset the imbalance? That's the equivalent of the players having equity in the league and it's profits.

Revenue sharing refers to the smaller market teams getting a check from the Knicks and Lakers to cover the disparity in revenues.

What you're referring to is the split of the basketball related income. Basically it protects players total salary from being less than half the income of the league. The downside is that no one was smart enough to include increased value of the franchise in the definition of basketball related income. So a savvy owner could make a city buy a new stadium and then immediately sell the team for a couple billion and the players see none of it.

[Bensational]

If your "angle" of defending salary cap is to say that it stops rich teams to get all the stars, all i can tell you that your angle failed you years ago because nba was always star and Celtics- Lakers centric league. That's why 5 nba teams hold 70% of all rings in league history. Last few years league has never been less competitive than it is right now. How many contenders you have going into 2017-18? One? One and half ?


cap exists just to have imaginative ceiling on owners spending list. That's literally it. Why cap space and it's growth is nowhere near progressive as inflation of money? Why literally each and every nba team has positive net value and it's doubled in last 4 years .
Why somebody like Kobe or Lebron can't make over $35M when we all know that they are worth 3 times as much ? Why each and every superstar is payed more than Nike ,Addias or UA than their basketball team?

It's like you work for company, you are treated as a bad guy if you don't take a paycut ( because your company can't compete with other ) and in same time you make them $600000 a week,and they pay you $6000 a month . That's basically NBA and their relationship with stars in nutshell. And it's so damn important to point out that basketball is 5 on 5 sport where one superstar makes sooo much difference on the floor compared to NFL,soccer, baseball or any other team sport.

( just think about Heat court side tickets and their price in nba finals and compare that to Lebron's $16M salary during that period in Miami, this year guy payed court side two tickets for $133K just for game 5 of nba finals, now count all court side seats, and do the math with best of 7 format )

But doesn't revenue sharing offset the imbalance? That's the equivalent of the players having equity in the league and it's profits.

Revenue sharing refers to the smaller market teams getting a check from the Knicks and Lakers to cover the disparity in revenues.

What you're referring to is the split of the basketball related income. Basically it protects players total salary from being less than half the income of the league. The downside is that no one was smart enough to include increased value of the franchise in the definition of basketball related income. So a savvy owner could make a city buy a new stadium and then immediately sell the team for a couple billion and the players see none of it.

It definitely seems like the players should have more of a cut of league wide profits, and investment/ownership of the league.

But for the league itself to function, I think there needs to be restrictions on the cap/contracts. Beyond that, the money/income behind all that should be split relatively evenly. But I think the players should negotiate between themselves as to how to split their own revenues.

[tiderulz]

But doesn't revenue sharing offset the imbalance? That's the equivalent of the players having equity in the league and it's profits.

Revenue sharing refers to the smaller market teams getting a check from the Knicks and Lakers to cover the disparity in revenues.

What you're referring to is the split of the basketball related income. Basically it protects players total salary from being less than half the income of the league. The downside is that no one was smart enough to include increased value of the franchise in the definition of basketball related income. So a savvy owner could make a city buy a new stadium and then immediately sell the team for a couple billion and the players see none of it.

It definitely seems like the players should have more of a cut of league wide profits, and investment/ownership of the league.

But for the league itself to function, I think there needs to be restrictions on the cap/contracts. Beyond that, the money/income behind all that should be split relatively evenly. But I think the players should negotiate between themselves as to how to split their own revenues.

so every employee of a successful company should get cuts of the company profits?

[KingRobb02]

Revenue sharing refers to the smaller market teams getting a check from the Knicks and Lakers to cover the disparity in revenues.

What you're referring to is the split of the basketball related income. Basically it protects players total salary from being less than half the income of the league. The downside is that no one was smart enough to include increased value of the franchise in the definition of basketball related income. So a savvy owner could make a city buy a new stadium and then immediately sell the team for a couple billion and the players see none of it.

It definitely seems like the players should have more of a cut of league wide profits, and investment/ownership of the league.

But for the league itself to function, I think there needs to be restrictions on the cap/contracts. Beyond that, the money/income behind all that should be split relatively evenly. But I think the players should negotiate between themselves as to how to split their own revenues.

so every employee of a successful company should get cuts of the company profits?

No. But in the case of the NBA the product IS the employees.

[fklt]

there are lots of people that advocates just that. all employees should have representation and share in their companies. that you should not be able to keep the wealth from the parties you are dependant on to build it.

[tiderulz]

It definitely seems like the players should have more of a cut of league wide profits, and investment/ownership of the league.

But for the league itself to function, I think there needs to be restrictions on the cap/contracts. Beyond that, the money/income behind all that should be split relatively evenly. But I think the players should negotiate between themselves as to how to split their own revenues.

so every employee of a successful company should get cuts of the company profits?

No. But in the case of the NBA the product IS the employees.

the case in many companies, the product is the employees. and the product is the employees and the all the extras.

[KingRobb02]

so every employee of a successful company should get cuts of the company profits?

No. But in the case of the NBA the product IS the employees.

the case in many companies, the product is the employees. and the product is the employees and the all the extras.

If Publix can figure out how to give teenagers stock options, I'm sure the NBA can do the same. And what non-entertainment industry has the employees as the product?

[tiderulz]

No. But in the case of the NBA the product IS the employees.

the case in many companies, the product is the employees. and the product is the employees and the all the extras.

If Publix can figure out how to give teenagers stock options, I'm sure the NBA can do the same. And what non-entertainment industry has the employees as the product?

they did, its called revenue sharing to the players. If i do my job well and the company makes a lot of money off my work, i dont just get to go in and demand more money. I can try and be told no and if i dont like it, i can go somewhere else. and stock options are for public companies. very rarely do you see a private company offer stock options to employees.

[KingRobb02]

the case in many companies, the product is the employees. and the product is the employees and the all the extras.

If Publix can figure out how to give teenagers stock options, I'm sure the NBA can do the same. And what non-entertainment industry has the employees as the product?

they did, its called revenue sharing to the players. If i do my job well and the company makes a lot of money off my work, i dont just get to go in and demand more money. I can try and be told no and if i dont like it, i can go somewhere else. and stock options are for public companies. very rarely do you see a private company offer stock options to employees.

You're missing the point. At PwC, you aren't the product. It's the audit process. In the NBA, the only value is in people wanting to see the players. If the top 20 players all decide to retire tomorrow, the league is worth less. Just look at average ticket price in Cleveland in the years LeBron was in Miami. So yes, the players do get the share of BRI to reflect immediate impact of their play, but the owners get that, the tax shelter, and the ability to flip the franchise on a whim and cash out.

[tiderulz]

If Publix can figure out how to give teenagers stock options, I'm sure the NBA can do the same. And what non-entertainment industry has the employees as the product?

they did, its called revenue sharing to the players. If i do my job well and the company makes a lot of money off my work, i dont just get to go in and demand more money. I can try and be told no and if i dont like it, i can go somewhere else. and stock options are for public companies. very rarely do you see a private company offer stock options to employees.

You're missing the point. At PwC, you aren't the product. It's the audit process. In the NBA, the only value is in people wanting to see the players. If the top 20 players all decide to retire tomorrow, the league is worth less. Just look at average ticket price in Cleveland in the years LeBron was in Miami. So yes, the players do get the share of BRI to reflect immediate impact of their play, but the owners get that, the tax shelter, and the ability to flip the franchise on a whim and cash out.

at PWC, you are the product. your consulting experience and knowledge. I didnt work audit, i worked the consulting side, and I was the product. Billed out at $450/hr, and i can tell you, i didnt make half of that

[KingRobb02]

they did, its called revenue sharing to the players. If i do my job well and the company makes a lot of money off my work, i dont just get to go in and demand more money. I can try and be told no and if i dont like it, i can go somewhere else. and stock options are for public companies. very rarely do you see a private company offer stock options to employees.

You're missing the point. At PwC, you aren't the product. It's the audit process. In the NBA, the only value is in people wanting to see the players. If the top 20 players all decide to retire tomorrow, the league is worth less. Just look at average ticket price in Cleveland in the years LeBron was in Miami. So yes, the players do get the share of BRI to reflect immediate impact of their play, but the owners get that, the tax shelter, and the ability to flip the franchise on a whim and cash out.

at PWC, you are the product. your consulting experience and knowledge. I didnt work audit, i worked the consulting side, and I was the product. Billed out at $450/hr, and i can tell you, i didnt make half of that

That's all fine, but you are not as irreplaceable as someone like Russell Westbrook. If he leaves town, the thunder may be back in Seattle in 5 years.

I've worked with PWC for years. Though I've met some nice people, if one of them decided to take another job I am definitely not going to take my business elsewhere. With the NBA, when LeBron changes teams millions of fans go with him. For reference, Rihanna is not a basketball fan and has no particular affinity for Cleveland. But she was repping hard during the finals and introducing waves of her fans to the Cavs. This is what I mean when I say the players are the product.

[RickB-Orlando]

There is definitely something wrong with any idea that restricts player movement. And yes, saying I can only maximize my earning potential by staying in the city that (unfairly) drafted me, is a restriction.

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

If things are so horrible, why hasn't the NBAPA already broken from the NBA and started a new league? It could be player run, they could set the salaries to be whatever they want, eliminate the cap, and allow for unrestricted freedom of movement.

I suspect it's because of the huge investments and costs involved in actually creating a league and running it, with the same going for owning and running a franchise. Do the owners make money? Absolutely, and buckets fill of it. But so do the players. They make millions even if they get injured, or angry, or just don't feel like playing hard, or insert any of a dozen other reasons that you might *think* a player would be expected to ignore because they are a pro. They collect their salary regardless. They get, in addition, ridiculous per diem for travel, which is via private jet in most cases, to stay in luxury hotels.

Obviously in my opinion the argument that NBA players are underpaid and undercompensated is a ludicrous one, but one that can easily be proven out. All the players need to do is quit, and play in their own league, and enjoy the sharing of fair compensation. Good luck with that.

[KingRobb02]

The NBA is a business and the players are employees. Employees are compensated for contributing to the growth and earnings of their employer. Therefore the success of the company is the initial focus. If it is determined that continuity of team core players improves a fan base and leads to league success, then creating opportunities for a player to maximize their earnings in the city that drafted them is not wrong at all ... it is good business.

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

If things are so horrible, why hasn't the NBAPA already broken from the NBA and started a new league? It could be player run, they could set the salaries to be whatever they want, eliminate the cap, and allow for unrestricted freedom of movement.

I suspect it's because of the huge investments and costs involved in actually creating a league and running it, with the same going for owning and running a franchise. Do the owners make money? Absolutely, and buckets fill of it. But so do the players. They make millions even if they get injured, or angry, or just don't feel like playing hard, or insert any of a dozen other reasons that you might *think* a player would be expected to ignore because they are a pro. They collect their salary regardless. They get, in addition, ridiculous per diem for travel, which is via private jet in most cases, to stay in luxury hotels.

Obviously in my opinion the argument that NBA players are underpaid and undercompensated is a ludicrous one, but one that can easily be proven out. All the players need to do is quit, and play in their own league, and enjoy the sharing of fair compensation. Good luck with that.

It's more because the nba has a legal monopoly and are exenoted from antitrust laws. There were some lawsuits raising this point during the 2011 lockout if I recall but they went nowhere. Basically yo clone all the current owners and the commissioners and try to start a new league and would quickly get snuffed out. You wouldn't be able to get arena deals or TV deals. Let's not pretend that the owners make money because of any immense talent on their side. If you think that being rich is a talent, then maybe do some more research.

[pepe1991]

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

If things are so horrible, why hasn't the NBAPA already broken from the NBA and started a new league? It could be player run, they could set the salaries to be whatever they want, eliminate the cap, and allow for unrestricted freedom of movement.

I suspect it's because of the huge investments and costs involved in actually creating a league and running it, with the same going for owning and running a franchise. Do the owners make money? Absolutely, and buckets fill of it. But so do the players. They make millions even if they get injured, or angry, or just don't feel like playing hard, or insert any of a dozen other reasons that you might *think* a player would be expected to ignore because they are a pro. They collect their salary regardless. They get, in addition, ridiculous per diem for travel, which is via private jet in most cases, to stay in luxury hotels.

Obviously in my opinion the argument that NBA players are underpaid and undercompensated is a ludicrous one, but one that can easily be proven out. All the players need to do is quit, and play in their own league, and enjoy the sharing of fair compensation. Good luck with that.

It's more because the nba has a legal monopoly and are exenoted from antitrust laws. There were some lawsuits raising this point during the 2011 lockout if I recall but they went nowhere. Basically yo clone all the current owners and the commissioners and try to start a new league and would quickly get snuffed out. You wouldn't be able to get arena deals or TV deals. Let's not pretend that the owners make money because of any immense talent on their side. If you think that being rich is a talent, then maybe do some more research.

Lot of rich people are actually just kids of succesful parents who can't live up to parents level of skill to make money or be succesfull at anything for that matter ( mostly because they never invested their time into building anything, that's why in US over 70% of second generation companies die ). Making something from ground is a skill, being born as rich is not.

[RickB-Orlando]

1. The nba is not a business. It is a cartel. We have a collection of franchises that collude to artificially lower the cost of their primary good, while also not allowing competitors to enter the market without approval.
2. The entire idea of a draft is that we provide these franchises with new talent at a pre-determined artificially low cost. Then we say that teams control these players for 7 years. Now you want to add a layer that says players are only free to leave if they sacrifice a lot of money.
3. I kind of think these last 3 Finals spit in the face of continuity driving interest. We just had the most watched Finals since 1998 [SOURCE], and I don't think it was because of continuity or parity. It was because we had a historically great team built on guys taking advantage of the ridiculous salary cap to play together.
4. When you say that it's good business for guys to stay in one city, you are kind of just saying it is better for the 30 owners if we remove some freedom from the 500 players. Kind of silly.

If things are so horrible, why hasn't the NBAPA already broken from the NBA and started a new league? It could be player run, they could set the salaries to be whatever they want, eliminate the cap, and allow for unrestricted freedom of movement.

I suspect it's because of the huge investments and costs involved in actually creating a league and running it, with the same going for owning and running a franchise. Do the owners make money? Absolutely, and buckets fill of it. But so do the players. They make millions even if they get injured, or angry, or just don't feel like playing hard, or insert any of a dozen other reasons that you might *think* a player would be expected to ignore because they are a pro. They collect their salary regardless. They get, in addition, ridiculous per diem for travel, which is via private jet in most cases, to stay in luxury hotels.

Obviously in my opinion the argument that NBA players are underpaid and undercompensated is a ludicrous one, but one that can easily be proven out. All the players need to do is quit, and play in their own league, and enjoy the sharing of fair compensation. Good luck with that.

It's more because the nba has a legal monopoly and are exenoted from antitrust laws. There were some lawsuits raising this point during the 2011 lockout if I recall but they went nowhere.

Baseball has a government sanctioned monopoly. Basketball does not.

Basically yo clone all the current owners and the commissioners and try to start a new league and would quickly get snuffed out. You wouldn't be able to get arena deals or TV deals. Let's not pretend that the owners make money because of any immense talent on their side. If you think that being rich is a talent, then maybe do some more research.

I didn't say talent, I said investments and costs. The reason the NBAPA couldn't get access to arenas? They would have to pay for it, sign contracts and commit to various splits of revenue, concessions, parking, minimum attendance thresholds, etcetera. It all costs money, the entire thing has to be bankrolled, and that is what the owners bring to the table. That, and relationships - don't for a minute think that owners relationships with various metropolitan movers and shakers, councilmen, mayors, politicians, and other businessmen doesn't have value.

My point is, it's not that simple to stand up a league and make money. Sure, the players are the product (to a large extent) but if they all walked out, the owners would be able to field teams in a few weeks that, while not *as* skilled, would still bring in fans. Hell, I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of the people on this board would be happy to play as scabs replacing NBA players for a couple hundred grand per year. Some might even feel a little bad about it, until they started actually getting the paychecks.

[Bensational]

If things are so horrible, why hasn't the NBAPA already broken from the NBA and started a new league? It could be player run, they could set the salaries to be whatever they want, eliminate the cap, and allow for unrestricted freedom of movement.

I suspect it's because of the huge investments and costs involved in actually creating a league and running it, with the same going for owning and running a franchise. Do the owners make money? Absolutely, and buckets fill of it. But so do the players. They make millions even if they get injured, or angry, or just don't feel like playing hard, or insert any of a dozen other reasons that you might *think* a player would be expected to ignore because they are a pro. They collect their salary regardless. They get, in addition, ridiculous per diem for travel, which is via private jet in most cases, to stay in luxury hotels.

Obviously in my opinion the argument that NBA players are underpaid and undercompensated is a ludicrous one, but one that can easily be proven out. All the players need to do is quit, and play in their own league, and enjoy the sharing of fair compensation. Good luck with that.

It's more because the nba has a legal monopoly and are exenoted from antitrust laws. There were some lawsuits raising this point during the 2011 lockout if I recall but they went nowhere.

Baseball has a government sanctioned monopoly. Basketball does not.

Basically yo clone all the current owners and the commissioners and try to start a new league and would quickly get snuffed out. You wouldn't be able to get arena deals or TV deals. Let's not pretend that the owners make money because of any immense talent on their side. If you think that being rich is a talent, then maybe do some more research.

I didn't say talent, I said investments and costs. The reason the NBAPA couldn't get access to arenas? They would have to pay for it, sign contracts and commit to various splits of revenue, concessions, parking, minimum attendance thresholds, etcetera. It all costs money, the entire thing has to be bankrolled, and that is what the owners bring to the table. That, and relationships - don't for a minute think that owners relationships with various metropolitan movers and shakers, councilmen, mayors, politicians, and other businessmen doesn't have value.

My point is, it's not that simple to stand up a league and make money. Sure, the players are the product (to a large extent) but if they all walked out, the owners would be able to field teams in a few weeks that, while not *as* skilled, would still bring in fans. Hell, I'm willing to bet that a huge percentage of the people on this board would be happy to play as scabs replacing NBA players for a couple hundred grand per year. Some might even feel a little bad about it, until they started actually getting the paychecks.

Yeah, players could definitely start their own league, but they'd be doing so and losing a lot of money. They wouldn't be able to operate at the scale the NBA currently is, even if they had a larger cut of the revenue.

Just look at self distributed web content vs traditional media. Very few web-only companies make anywhere near the money of established media companies that have long since become parts of giant conglomerates. Sure, YouTube stars can make a living, but it's not the same as banking a 3 picture deal in a Marvel series.

[KingRobb02]

You guys are talking as if the current set of owners would be able to create a successful league from scratch. Seems like the misconception is to correlate the success of the league with something the owners are doing when they are just along for the ride. Be honest. If you had unlimited resources and could start a league tomorrow, would you rather take the NBA Owners with you, or the players?

[Bensational]

You guys are talking as if the current set of owners would be able to create a successful league from scratch. Seems like the misconception is to correlate the success of the league with something the owners are doing when they are just along for the ride. Be honest. If you had unlimited resources and could start a league tomorrow, would you rather take the NBA Owners with you, or the players?

But the players wouldn't have unlimited resources. If they did, it would be easy for them to start a new league.

A better example is if the players split off and started their own league, and the NBA maintained its current owners and infrastructure, which would do better?

Franchises are institutions. Fans follow teams, more than they follow players. A player run league would really be behind the 8 ball trying to establish the kind of brand loyalty the current franchises have established over the last 20-50 years. They could get there, but it would take time, and they'd likely lose money over the first few years. Meanwhile, the NBA will likely continue to draw in top college talent who see an empty stage to become the face of.

[fklt]

I think nature of the problem is quite simple.

if an organization is privately owned, it should abide by the antitrust laws. so that there is always a free market, so that consumers and employees have a leverage to keep the quality up. if an organization is to dominate its market by its nature, it should be state owned/non-profit so that consumer and employee concerns could also be driving factors besides profitability.

most of big leagues in the world are state owned independent bodies. nba is not. nba is a privately owned monopoly, problem and injustice of it lies within that simple fact. barrier of entry problem, and so on.