New Union Chief Calls Owners Expendable - [Fox Sports]

Doesn't the fact that you can list so many great entertainers inherently make them pretty replaceable? If Robert De Niro never existed, would Hollywood be broke right now?

As for it being semantics, you are saying that stars like LeBron James and Kevin Durant would have been stars with or without the NBA operations behind them. Is this true? For example, if the NBA never existed, would LeBron James currently be worth hundreds of millions?

 

Do you know how many logical fallacies you made in that statement? I'm counting three. How about you?

Do you have any other arguments about my claim that the Entertainment Industry is different than the rest of economy?

That is all she is saying. The owners of NBA teams own businesses in different business sectors. She is speaking to all sectors of the economy, to make a point to the owners of NBA teams.

She is merely say Robert De Niro is the product...not the workers in your stadium selling him.

are you following me? Am I going too fast?

She is saying that unlike their businesses where top management and ownership defines the Brand that ppl buy vs the employees...the Entertainment Industry is different. It is flipped. The employees define the "brand" or themselves more than ownership.

That's just a business fact. You can't really argue against this when you include all businesses, like she was.

It's a fact.

That's all she is saying.

 

As already mentioned, it's all about how much you can leverage. No one is asking the owners to pay people this big pile of money to play basketball either. But would you really be that interested in the NBA if it's the second tier league and the best talents are in Europe like soccer or China (where salaries are going into the millions tax free).

 

I don't even really know what that statement means and neither does the Entertainment industry.

You don't get it. The new Union Prez is placing this into Entertainment Industry terms, which are the exact terms that the NBA negotiated with TV/Cable. It's Entertainment.

Nobody is forcing Robert De Niro to take a part in a movie. But he has no cap in his negotiations?

What?

right.

you actually believe that, or is this just your theory.

 

I do agree that it is about how much you can leverage. I have no problem with that. Each side should try to get as much of the pie as possible. That is fine and sometimes not pretty. The problem I have is comparing this to slavery and stating that the owners are not important at all.

"No one is asking the owners to pay people this big pile of money to play basketball either."

What I meant was, both the owners and players agree to this. Each side has the right to say no. If this were slavery they would be forced to do this with no real compensation. In businesses where having high quality employees key, most owners/managers understand that you have to compensate them well.

"But would you really be that interested in the NBA if it's the second tier league and the best talents are in Europe like soccer or China (where salaries are going into the millions tax free)."

Other countries have very successful sports leagues so I really don't know. If I was born outside the U.S., I would probably pay attention to my own country's league.

 

De Niro doesn't get guaranteed 5 year contracts or other such things either. The union agreed to max contracts and salary caps in exchange for other things they wanted. And most of the members benefit from those max contracts. So she can talk all she wants about getting rid of those things, but she will have to fight her own members before fighting the owners. And every other time the union has fought the owners, they tend to lose - because unlike De Niro, who can go work for another film company without penalty, there's no real place where an NBA player can get the kind of pay, lifestyle, and exposure they can get in the NBA.

Of course, they can go to Europe or Asia, but then they have to live away from their family and friends, and maybe not get fancy chartered flights to all their games, or get the endorsement exposure they get here, etc. There's a reason NBA players rarely ever choose to go to other leagues until they are washed up.

 

Comments were directed at the slavery comparisons. Players choose basketball as a career, they are not forced to be basketball players.

Didn't the players agree to that in the CBA? It all comes down to who blinks first. The players do not need to agree to max salaries. They just won't get paid in the meantime. If the owners want a cap on max salaries in negotiations and the players don't, it is going to come down to who can hold out the longest.

Not that simple but there is a contract with terms and by signing it they will be compensated according to those terms.

 

Oh, so you know that. You know that MGM and 20th Century Fox haven't offered him that and he didn't turn it down.

Quit talking about things you don't know.

The Union Prez made a statement to differentiate Entertainment Industry from the rest of the business sector like Real Estate Moguls...which are several of the owners of NBA.

You are actually saying it is all the same?

Robert De Niro is the same as a Trump Tower?

Really, you believe that?

 

Both Eddie Murphy and Prince considered themselves bound to slave-owner contracts, and they both rebelled.

Everyone...please quit interpreting this in a microcosm of the Entertainment Industry. When you include the entire business world that the owners exist in, what she says is absolutely correct.

Throughout all business...Entertainment Industry is more about Talent than the Owners.

In pretty much all other industry, the owners/management are more important.

That said, in Law Firms and Surgery Industries...again, the Talent is more important than the names on the wall.

I can go on and on...She is absolutely correct.