Does anyone have any info on the history of the split in the NBA? As far as I can find, the concept of BRI was defined in the 98 lockout. How were revenues divided before that and does anyone have information on the history of the division of revenues down through the years?
Because it seems to me like the lockout of 98 was more about system issues than overall division of revenues, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the league actually gave the union more $$$ overall in exchange for accepting max contracts, rookie wage scale etc.
Does anyone have this info?
History of BRI?
Moderators: Harry Garris, ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285
History of BRI?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 659
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,684
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 03, 2009
Re: History of BRI?
1983
57-53, Players was agreed upon in April of that season, system was then enacted in 1984/85. It's been that way ever since. Players were geared up to strike in order to get a guaranteed split.
This situation is alluded to in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC1RulzR8q4
Segment from LA Times article dated Nov 1, 1987:
The NBA players came within a day of going on strike in April 1983, when a contract agreement was reached with the league's owners that included a salary cap and a guaranteed percentage of gross revenues allotted to players.
A strike deadline set by the union was timed to fall just before the start of the playoffs, and both sides agreed that the leverage gained by the players was pivotal in the ultimate agreement.
If a strike comes, NBA players say they don't want to get into a situation like the NFL players did in which they have to return after gaining little or nothing.
"It's hard to hunt when the owners have all the bullets," Jeff Cook of the Phoenix Suns said. "We've never been in the position that the NFL players put themselves in. They put themselves in a stalemate situation where neither side would give in."
"We can't let it get to the point where we have no leverage," New York Knicks player representative Rory Sparrow said. "In the heat of battle, the union leaders have to make tough decisions. Gene Upshaw (of the NFL) thought the players would sustain the effort."
57-53, Players was agreed upon in April of that season, system was then enacted in 1984/85. It's been that way ever since. Players were geared up to strike in order to get a guaranteed split.
This situation is alluded to in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC1RulzR8q4
Segment from LA Times article dated Nov 1, 1987:
The NBA players came within a day of going on strike in April 1983, when a contract agreement was reached with the league's owners that included a salary cap and a guaranteed percentage of gross revenues allotted to players.
A strike deadline set by the union was timed to fall just before the start of the playoffs, and both sides agreed that the leverage gained by the players was pivotal in the ultimate agreement.
If a strike comes, NBA players say they don't want to get into a situation like the NFL players did in which they have to return after gaining little or nothing.
"It's hard to hunt when the owners have all the bullets," Jeff Cook of the Phoenix Suns said. "We've never been in the position that the NFL players put themselves in. They put themselves in a stalemate situation where neither side would give in."
"We can't let it get to the point where we have no leverage," New York Knicks player representative Rory Sparrow said. "In the heat of battle, the union leaders have to make tough decisions. Gene Upshaw (of the NFL) thought the players would sustain the effort."
Re: History of BRI?
- mid-post
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,598
- And1: 70
- Joined: May 06, 2010
- Location: rock-afire explosion
Re: History of BRI?
You mean 47-53, right? I keep seeing that amount pop up...but 57+53>100%
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,684
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 03, 2009
Re: History of BRI?
mid-post wrote:You mean 47-53, right? I keep seeing that amount pop up...but 57+53>100%
No, 53 to 57, meaning the players were guaranteed anywhere between 53 to 57 percent of the pie.
Re: History of BRI?
- Frosty
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,980
- And1: 13,478
- Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Re: History of BRI?
hourockman wrote:mid-post wrote:You mean 47-53, right? I keep seeing that amount pop up...but 57+53>100%
No, 53 to 57, meaning the players were guaranteed anywhere between 53 to 57 percent of the pie.
That's not true. In 1999 it was $34 million dollar cap(I think due to the lockout). In 00-01 it went to a BRI formula of 48.04% and rising. It' never started at 53%
http://books.google.ca/books?id=PGRkblS ... 99&f=false
Atheism is a non-prophet organization
Re: History of BRI?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,088
- And1: 0
- Joined: May 27, 2003
Re: History of BRI?
Frosty- you are confusing the cap number with what percentage of revenue the players were guaranteed.
Re: History of BRI?
- Frosty
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,980
- And1: 13,478
- Joined: Nov 06, 2007
Re: History of BRI?
killbuckner wrote:Frosty- you are confusing the cap number with what percentage of revenue the players were guaranteed.
If you look at point #2 you will see the guaranteed minimum return to the players on BRI was actually lower then the 48.04% salary cap. Due to an agreement they were supposed to lower the 00-01 Cap by $4.8 million per team but this took them below the guaranteed $35.5 Million so it got set at $35.5. This tells me players were not even guaranteed 48%
Atheism is a non-prophet organization
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,205
- And1: 713
- Joined: May 28, 2007
- Contact:
Re: History of BRI?
Frosty wrote:If you look at point #2 you will see the guaranteed minimum return to the players on BRI was actually lower then the 48.04% salary cap. Due to an agreement they were supposed to lower the 00-01 Cap by $4.8 million per team but this took them below the guaranteed $35.5 Million so it got set at $35.5. This tells me players were not even guaranteed 48%
No, you are wrong. You are looking at the number for the soft cap NOT the number of the revenue share. It was indeed between 53 and 57 before. That has little to do with the salary cap. ;)
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,857
- And1: 659
- Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Re: History of BRI?
So is that a no?
I'm not seeing any type of factual data that shows a division of revenues here. Where did you get the 53-57% from hourockman?
I'm not seeing any type of factual data that shows a division of revenues here. Where did you get the 53-57% from hourockman?
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,684
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 03, 2009
Re: History of BRI?
erudite23 wrote:So is that a no?
I'm not seeing any type of factual data that shows a division of revenues here. Where did you get the 53-57% from hourockman?
From paying attention over the years. Coon discusses the 53-57 figures in his article on Page 1. I'm not making it up, br0, I assure you. I'm gonna pass on googling for a link. I've done my part.
Damn...
Re: History of BRI?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 2,684
- And1: 3
- Joined: May 03, 2009
Re: History of BRI?
mysticbb wrote:Frosty wrote:If you look at point #2 you will see the guaranteed minimum return to the players on BRI was actually lower then the 48.04% salary cap. Due to an agreement they were supposed to lower the 00-01 Cap by $4.8 million per team but this took them below the guaranteed $35.5 Million so it got set at $35.5. This tells me players were not even guaranteed 48%
No, you are wrong. You are looking at the number for the soft cap NOT the number of the revenue share. It was indeed between 53 and 57 before. That has little to do with the salary cap.
Good job, mystic.