Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[CBS Sports - Berger] Labor update as NBA heads for 'ugly' lockout

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011.

Page 1 of 8

jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

Berger always has nice articles summarizing the current state of the potential lock out.

http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/30279581

Labor update as NBA heads for 'ugly' lockout

Posted on: June 27, 2011 11:55 am
Edited on: June 27, 2011 12:12 pm

NEW YORK -- The NBA owners' planning committee is meeting by conference call Monday to tackle one of the most significant sticking points that have kept the league's imperiled labor negotiations from progressing toward any chance of a deal: revenue sharing.

The committee, led by chairman Wyc Grousbeck of the Celtics, had been scheduled to meet last Friday in conjunction with a full-blown bargaining session with players, but the session was rescheduled.

The status of owners' work on a revamped revenue sharing program -- and the sharing of that information with the National Basketball Players Association -- is viewed as paramount to any slim chances the two sides have of progressing toward a new collective bargaining agreement by midnight Thursday, the expiration of the current deal. Commissioner David Stern last week disputed the union's assertion that owners have not shared "one iota" of their revenue sharing plan, and the upshot was this: not only can owners and players not agree on the league's financial losses, they cannot even agree whether revenue-sharing information has been shared with the players.

The owners' full Board of Governors is scheduled to meet Tuesday in Dallas in preparation for either one last push toward a deal or the lockout that executives on both sides have viewed as all but inevitable for the better part of two years. The owners and players are tentatively scheduled to convene in New York Wednesday and/or Thursday to take one final stab at making a deal. If enough progress is not made to at least prompt an extension of the negotiating deadline, owners are prepared to impose a lockout at 12:01 a.m. ET Friday. The Board of Governors could conduct a procedural vote Tuesday in Dallas to authorize the labor relations committee to lock the players out, although Stern said such a vote could be taken at any time and wouldn't have to be done in person.

At the Tuesday meeting, the labor relations committee -- led by Spurs owner Peter Holt -- will update the full board on the progress in collective bargaining talk with the players. That presentation should take about as long as it takes Tony Parker to get to the basket from the foul line. Despite bargaining sessions in Dallas and Miami during the NBA Finals, and three sessions last week in New York, the two sides appear no closer to a deal than they were in January 2010 -- when owners first presented a draconian proposal calling for a $45 million hard salary cap, the elimination of fully guaranteed contracts, and a more than 33 percent rollback of player salaries.

Owners have since moved about $650 million annually on their salary demands, offering to guarantee players no less than $2 billion in salary and benefits over the life of a 10-year CBA. They also have relaxed their insistence on banning fully guaranteed deals -- though contracts would be for a maximum of three or four years under their proposal, as opposed to the five- and six-year deals free agents can sign under the current CBA, with the extra year in both cases going to a player re-signing with his current team.

Owners also made what they portrayed as a significant concession in offering a "flex cap" concept with a $62 million target for all teams and a top and bottom range to be negotiated with the players. The NBPA rejected this proposal during a week filled with incendiary rhetoric, with union president Derek Fisher of the Lakers calling it a hard cap in disguise and saying it was a "total distortion of reality."

The players have made two significant economic moves during the recent talks, first offering to take a $318 million pay cut over a five-year deal and then raising that offer to $500 million. Stern referred to the latter move as "modest," infuriating union officials and galvanizing the players to the point where more than 30 of them showed up at Friday's bargaining session at the Omni Berkshire Hotel wearing NBPA T-shirts with the word "STAND" printed on the front.

The players also were rankled by the league's offer of a flat $2 billion in annual compensation in the owners' 10-year proposal. Not only do the players oppose a CBA of that length, they also allege that they would not regain their 2010-11 mark of $2.17 billion in salary and benefits until the final year of the owners' 10-year plan. The owners' offer to phase in their salary reductions -- first for two years, and then for three -- was viewed by the players as a non-starter because they would receive less than 50 percent of basketball-related income (BRI) by the midpoint of the deal and would be below 40 percent in the final years. The players currently are guaranteed 57 percent of the league revenues, which are expected to come in at $3.8 billion for the '10-'11 season.

Players also viewed the owners' request to keep the approximately $160 million in salary collected by the league in an escrow fund for the '10-'11 season as part of their most recent proposal. Money earned by players under the existing CBA should be "off the table," according to Fisher, who said this request by the owners "speaks to their arrogance." League officials were dismayed by Fisher's comments and believe it would've been more productive for the players to reject the idea during negotiations rather than air it publicly.

But a key tipping point in bargaining could be what revenue-sharing details the owners come forward with this week. Owners have long rejected the players' request that revenue-sharing be collectively bargained, but the players believe many of the issues owners have addressed with regard to improving competitive balance could be satisfied by redistributing revenues from successful to struggling teams. In Friday's bargaining session, the Celtics' Paul Pierce crystallized the players' perception that owners have cloaked their determination to slash salaries behind the more benign concept of competitive balance.

"If it’s about being competitive, let’s come up with a system we can all be competitive in," Pierce told the owners, according to Suns player representative Jared Dudley. "If it’s about money, that’s a different story that we’re talking about."

Although NBA owners have enhanced their revenue-sharing plan in recent years, the league continues to have one of the most inequitable systems in professional sports, with big-market teams holding enormous advantages because local gate and broadcast revenues are not included in the revenue-sharing pie. Owners view the current luxury-tax system as akin to revenue sharing, but it is not enough to address the disparity between teams like the Knicks and Lakers, who make more than five times what teams like Memphis and Minnesota bring in through ticket sales. Those glamour-market teams also enjoy local broadcast deals that exceed some small-market teams' total revenues, according to a person familiar with league finances.

It has been difficult for the NBPA to justify the massive salary reductions the league is seeking without knowing how owners plan to address this enormous disparity among teams. One option at the NBPA's disposal would have been to file a request with the National Labor Relations Board seeking a ruling that revenue sharing should be a "mandatory subject" of collective bargaining. Sources say union officials have opted not to go this route and instead have trusted the owners to come forth with an effective and transparent approach to getting their own financial house in order before getting further salary concessions from the players.

After declining to make a counter offer to the owners' latest proposal Friday, the players have put the onus on owners and league negotiators to reveal their revenue-sharing plans as part of the next scheduled bargaining session in New York. As of Monday, sources said NBPA officials had no plans to travel to Dallas for an additional bargaining session.

In any event, it may already be too late to get a deal in place and avert a lockout. Even if the two sides unexpectedly made significant progress Wednesday and Thursday, there would not be enough time for lawyers to craft a new agreement before the deadline. In that case, the league would impose a moratorium on business while final details were hammered out and the contract was drafted.

But far more likely is that both sides will be unwilling to move off their most recent positions until the pain of a work stoppage is experienced.

"They've got to go through the process," said a person who has been heavily involved in past labor negotiations. "It's going to be ugly."
Click to expand...

#1 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011
Last edited: Jun 28, 2011

jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

Interesting to see a players side of the story.

http://blogs.hoopshype.com/blogs/thomas/2011/06/27/united-we-stand/

Etan Thomas' Blog - United We Stand

My son Malcolm is almost six years old and about two years ago he had a project in school where his assignment was to write a list of what he wanted for Christmas. As soon as he got home, he handed this list to me with a big smile on his face. This list included a helicopter, a rocket ship, his very own Aang (like in Avatar: The Last Airbender) and a horse. Although I appreciated his imagination, I explained to him that those things were simply unrealistic, and when he is ready to make a real list, then we can talk.

In a similar manner, the NBA presented the Players Association with a proposal that appeared to be more like a Christmas List to Santa Claus than the start of an actual negotiation. The NBA expressed desires of a new imposed hard cap, removal of all guaranteed contracts, drastic economic concessions and a guaranteed profit for each team. They wanted to ensure that no matter what poor business decisions individual teams make (economic, personnel, etcetera) they all can expect guaranteed profits.

Greed should not be the determining factor that takes an entire season, or possibly more, away from the fans. They deserve better than that.

Let me be clear: The players want to get this resolved, and have made every effort to compromise, even in the face of an unrealistic wish list.

The Players Association and the NBA have continued to talk in an attempt to reach some common ground, but our efforts have been thus far unsuccessful. While I appreciate the NBA taking the time to meet with the Players Association repeatedly and give, as David Stern called it, “virtually the best shot we think we have to avoid a work stoppage,” I have to respectfully take issue with the their approach.

Last Tuesday, David Stern felt it appropriate to reveal detailed information about the league’s salary cap proposal and as a result I feel the need to put it all in perspective just so everyone has a clear understanding of what is going on without the Fox News-type spin.

In an effort to salvage the season, the NBPA presented the NBA with a proposal to address some of their needs. We tried to directly address the economic woes that the league has reported by coming to the very difficult decision of a massive financial giveback. This would consist of the players relinquishing $500 million in salary over five years by reducing our share of guaranteed revenues from 57 percent to 54.3 percent.

Keep in mind that this offer is coming on the heels of a historic season where league-wide revenue soared to an all-time high $4.3 billion, where the NBA delivered a record television audience for its network partners and brought higher than anticipated gate revenue.

A season where the league drew 21.3 million fans and the fifth-highest attendance in NBA history. Knowing these accomplishments and hearing the NBA’s unreasonable wish list, the Players Association still attempted to create a resolution by making a sizable economic concession to offset the NBA’s claim of financial losses. Surprisingly, our offer was characterized by commissioner David Stern simply as modest. They wanted more.

Knowing a hard cap was one of the many items on the NBA’s wish list that was vehemently rejected by the Players Association, they came up with a new idea. The NBA said that they would back off their desire for non-guaranteed contracts, but wanted to introduce a new system.

According to an article by the Associated Press, David Stern said the league had proposed a “flex cap” in which teams would target a uniform dollar amount to spend, but would still be permitted to exceed it up to an unspecified level.

According to Stern, teams would be targeted to spend approximately $62 million, with the option to spend above through certain exceptions before reaching a limit they could not exceed.

There is a saying that you can pour syrup on anything but that doesn’t make it pancakes.

Changing the language in how a hard cap is defined does not change it from in fact being a hard cap. The term “flex cap” may sound nice, but at the end of the day it’s still a hard cap.

The NBA’s “concession” of backing off their desire for non-guaranteed contracts, but implementing a hard cap system is fool’s gold. It absolutely does us no good. There would still be roll backs. Each contract would have to conform to a hard cap system, meaning they could be reduced by as much as a third depending on the actual hard number agreed upon. It would cut out the middle class completely. Two guys may be able to obtain an actual contract while it will be difficult for the rest of the team to get guaranteed deals, etcetera, etcetera.

This cannot be a starting point for us. They have in essence tried to insult our intelligence by making us think that something they have “given us” is a slam dunk when in reality its very far from progress. Again, it’s fool’s gold. Not to mention the fact that we already have guaranteed contracts as well as a soft cap system. They have put two non-starters for us on the table and tried to begin negotiating from that standpoint.

We might as well had told them that we’re going to back off our desire of having no salary cap (which has proven to work in baseball no matter what they say) and wait for their “response” and see what they were willing to give back to us in exchange for the gracious concession we just made for them. They are trying to bamboozle us and really it’s insulting. It was a nice try but we’re a lot smarter than they give us credit for.

Against our better judgement, and in an effort to save the next NBA season, which is in danger of being completely lost, we began negotiating from their fictional and ridiculous proposal of non-guarantees, hard cap, shorter years, drastic giveback, adjustment of BRI and guaranteed profits. We attempted to address some of their concerns without drastically dismantling our entire system. A more sensible approach would have been for the NBA to begin negotiations with the system we currently have and begin making additions, adjustments, etcetera, that work in the best interest of both parties.

We entertained their fantasy and they not only discounted and rejected our efforts, but they spit at our concessions and await for us to make another offer to them?

To quote Billy Hunter, ”we’ve had guaranteed contracts for 40 years, so it’s almost like somebody walks into your house and they take something that belongs to you, and then they want to sell it back. And you say, ‘It was mine from the get-go, so why should I pay for it? And I didn’t authorize you to take it, and I never said it was available for you to take or use or abuse.”

It is for this reason that the players collectively reject their proposal and are prepared for a lockout for whatever duration it takes in order to reach a deal that is fair. The players can’t take on the burden of saving teams from themselves. If NBA teams have made bad decisions that were detrimental to their overall profit, success and productivity, then those are issues to be taken up with GMs, presidents and the rest of the powers that be. It is up to each NBA CEO to conduct his business in a way that will be advantageous to him and his franchise as a whole.

But make no mistake, to play in the NBA is a blessing. We all appreciate and value this opportunity and have the utmost respect for the game.

Which is why we feel an obligation to avoid turning our backs on the future generations as well as the younger players in this league. We know our history. We are fully aware of the fact that the players before us laid a foundation that we have a responsibility to cherish and preserve. Players like Michael Jordan, Dr. J, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Pete Maravich, Bob Lanier, Nate Archibald, Moses Malone, Magic Johnson, Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Larry Bird, all the former players who were prepared to boycott the 1964 All-Star Game in an effort to be recognized as a union and negotiate their rights, such as Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Lenny Wilkens, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Bob Pettit, Walt Bellamy, Tom Heinsohn… They all paved the way and fought for this league to reach the level it is now, and we respect that. We cannot take all of their hard work and throw it down the drain.

As NBPA president Derek Fisher said in Friday’s meeting where 50 players from around the league collectively stood with our “Stand” shirts on in front of David Stern and the CEOs of the NBA, “we will not accept a bad deal that is not fair to our players. We’d love to avoid a lockout, but we are unified in the sense of not being afraid if that’s what we’re faced with.”

You can read more on Etan Thomas at etanthomas.com.
Click to expand...

#2 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011
Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
Raven Member

Joined:

Jul 24, 2002

Messages:

14,984

Likes Received:

1,024

Owners will win, but the real losers are the fans, because without a franchise tag, fans are going to be held hostage to the vain and shallow whims of players who've come to expect rock star media attention and a willingness to do whatever it takes to get it, including whoring out their "talents" to more glamorous cities.

#3 Raven, Jun 28, 2011
Carl Herrera Contributing Member

Joined:

Feb 16, 2007

Messages:

45,153

Likes Received:

21,570

I saw Etan on TV coming out of the CBA meeting wearing one of those STAND shirts, and thought "Etan Thomas is still in the league?"

#4 Carl Herrera, Jun 28, 2011
Octavianus Member

Joined:

Feb 18, 2009

Messages:

1,301

Likes Received:

21

One lot of victims with be the rookies, as they will not have a chance to train with the teams and be around the coaches.
If a lockout happens, look to see a lot of rookies not getting a lot of playing time this year.

#5 Octavianus, Jun 28, 2011
jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/barkley-says-nba-needs-miracle-to-avoid-lockout

Barkley says NBA needs miracle to avoid lockout

In an interview with ESPN Radio New York, Charles Barkley said owner opposition to players' ability to build super teams similar to the Miami Heat will ensure a lockout.

Barkley went on to praise David Stern, but commented the NBA commissioner must do some serious dealing for the season to start without some form of a lockout.

“It would take a miracle on (Stern’s) part not to have a lockout and I truly believe that,” Barkley said. “I think there’s going to be a lockout, I think the owners are dug in, I think they want to send a message to these players.

"I think they’re really upset by this LeBron James/Chris Bosh situation, because their teams don’t have to be really good, but I feel like if they have a star in their market they can make some money. And if all the stars want to play together… we’re almost becoming like baseball where you’ve got a few good teams and the rest of them stink."

The NBA collective bargaining agreement expires June 30 and the summer league, held in Las Vegas each year to usher in rookies and free agents, has been canceled.

The NBA last had a lockout in the 1998-99 season, which led to a January start and amended the season to 50 games.
Click to expand...

#6 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011
jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/nba-owners-could-authorize-lockout-sides-to-meet-in-new-york-wednesday

NBA owners could authorize lockout; sides to meet in New York Wednesday

Sean Deveney
Sporting News

Not long ago, it was NBA championship week. Then it was NBA draft week. Now, with the current collective bargaining agreement set to expire on Thursday, we’ve begun NBA lockout week.

It begins today in Dallas, where league owners convene for a Board of Governors meeting. It’s possible that, at that meeting, the owners will vote to authorize a lockout of their players. That vote could be delayed, though, as owners and players have another meeting scheduled in New York on Wednesday, and have left open the possibility meeting Thursday, too.

The likelihood of a deal getting done before the CBA expires seems slim, however. The sides remain entrenched on the issues — and in the case of revenue sharing, a crucial point in any revamped NBA system, they can’t even decide what it is they’re negotiating about.

Commissioner David Stern and the owners have long held that sharing revenue is a matter for owners to work out among themselves — it’s their revenue that is being shared, after all. But players say that the financial straits the league claims to be in ($300 million in losses, according to the NBA’s math) can be largely cleared through better sharing of revenue with small-market teams and that the issue should be collectively bargained.

“We’ve had some discussions about revenue sharing, they have not disclosed to us an iota of what their proposed revenue sharing plan might look like, what the contribution would be coming from the owners of the respective teams, et cetera,” union chief Billy Hunter said last week. “Whether or not that would precipitate a move by us beforehand or whatever has yet to be seen. But, yeah, we would definitely like to know and see it. We'd like to not only see it, but to incorporate it as far as the collective bargaining.”

Of course, if the two sides can’t even agree on whether they should include revenue sharing in the CBA, then they’re clearly a long way off from a deal. And that’s not even the biggest hurdle in the talks. That remains the inclusion of a salary cap that would limit spending on player salaries to $62 million, with an escrow system in place to adjust for teams that are slightly over or under the $62 million target. The league has offered a 50-50 split of revenues (the current split gives the players 57 percent), with a $2 billion guarantee.

The owners are calling that a “flex cap.” The players, though, are saying it is still a “hard cap,” something they vow to refuse in any form. Every other issue — the age limit, contract lengths, even revenue sharing — is taking a back seat to the question of the cap.
Click to expand...

#7 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011

Damion Laverne Member

Joined:

Nov 19, 2010

Messages:

2,052

Likes Received:

1,778

It was nice to see the labor dealings from a player's perspective; however, the salary cap needs to be addressed, and the abolition of the salary cap would be a disaster because almost none of the small market teams could be competitive.

#8 Damion Laverne, Jun 28, 2011
A_3PO Member

Joined:

Apr 29, 2006

Messages:

42,341

Likes Received:

5,748

It will be ugly and painful, but I'm starting to wonder how much pain the players can endure. I have serious doubts about them holding firm for an entire season. This "United We Stand" rhetoric is nice and fuzzy right now, but let's see how it is in January.

The owners seem to be in a position of strength and they know it. As I see it, the longer it drags out, the owners will become more determined to get what they want while the players become weaker.

#9 A_3PO, Jun 28, 2011
juicystream Contributing Member

Joined:

Apr 17, 2001

Messages:

29,284

Likes Received:

5,398

Octavianus said: ↑

One lot of victims with be the rookies, as they will not have a chance to train with the teams and be around the coaches.
If a lockout happens, look to see a lot of rookies not getting a lot of playing time this year.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Cuttino Mobley. 2nd round pick during the last labor stoppage, played 30 mpg and took the last shot in the game 1 loss to the Lakers in the playoffs that year.

#10 juicystream, Jun 28, 2011
t_mac1 Contributing Member

Joined:

Jan 10, 2008

Messages:

26,614

Likes Received:

211

On my way home from work yesterday listening to Stephen A Smith, he basically says the owners want to regain the control b/c they want to control where players go, not players control where they want to go--and all this is b/c of Lebron James.

#11 t_mac1, Jun 28, 2011
Zacatecas Member

Joined:

Feb 7, 2002

Messages:

1,520

Likes Received:

104

Unfortunately the lockout may be necessary... From a fan's perspective, it sucks having the patience to groom a player just to have him walk away. With these players coming into the league at 19 years old, and sucking it up for a season or 2 before they start coming into their own.

Fans and Owners have a lot in common... They want to build winners at the home front - the home team. Players want the money because their careers are short - or at least limited.

Fans and Owners cannot let the players run the league. Most of the players are in a mad dash for the money. And who can blame them?

There might be one good thing about Wade/Bosh/James - it's going to change the platform of the league.... Owners are going to win this one. With the cold hard fact of the economy's downturn, I don't think the fans are as apt to root for the players as much anymore.

#12 Zacatecas, Jun 28, 2011
Shanghai Shake Member

Joined:

Dec 11, 2010

Messages:

50

Likes Received:

3

t_mac1 said: ↑

On my way home from work yesterday listening to Stephen A Smith, he basically says the owners want to regain the control b/c they want to control where players go, not players control where they want to go--and all this is b/c of Lebron James.
Click to expand...

Lebron was an unrestricted free agent. The only thing he "controlled" was excercising his freedom to choose what team he works for. And in what league do owners control "where players go??" Guaranteed contracts, revenue sharing, hard/soft/flex cap, amnesty clause, franchsie tags, etc....are all issues being negotiated....

#13 Shanghai Shake, Jun 28, 2011

LabMouse Member

Joined:

Jun 27, 2008

Messages:

3,662

Likes Received:

251

Hard cap is good for the rockets, I want NBA to have a hard cap or lockout.

#14 LabMouse, Jun 28, 2011
A_3PO Member

Joined:

Apr 29, 2006

Messages:

42,341

Likes Received:

5,748

t_mac1 said: ↑

On my way home from work yesterday listening to Stephen A Smith, he basically says the owners want to regain the control b/c they want to control where players go, not players control where they want to go--and all this is b/c of Lebron James.
Click to expand...

You overstate it some IMO, but the "superteam" creation in Miami increased determination in small market owners to make sure their interests are addressed. For the players as a whole, LeBron couldn't have chosen a worse year. The talk a few months ago about Dwight Howard planning for the Lakers and CP3 & Melo meeting up on the Knicks added fuel to the fire.

#15 A_3PO, Jun 28, 2011
LabMouse Member

Joined:

Jun 27, 2008

Messages:

3,662

Likes Received:

251

A hard cap can control them because no team can have a room for three max players.

Shanghai Shake said: ↑

Lebron was an unrestricted free agent. The only thing he "controlled" was excercising his freedom to choose what team he works for. And in what league do owners control "where players go??" Guaranteed contracts, revenue sharing, hard/soft/flex cap, amnesty clause, franchsie tags, etc....are all issues being negotiated....
Click to expand...

#16 LabMouse, Jun 28, 2011
Jontro Member

Joined:

Feb 3, 2010

Messages:

34,372

Likes Received:

22,111

This means that Dallas will no repeat and Bosh and Co will only max out on 5 rings now with a season lost.

#17 Jontro, Jun 28, 2011
jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

From http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/6/28/2248168/nba-lockout-revenue-sharing

#18 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011

Spacemoth Contributing Member

Joined:

Jul 30, 2007

Messages:

9,839

Likes Received:

4,489

jsmee2000 said: ↑

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/barkley-says-nba-needs-miracle-to-avoid-lockout

Barkley says NBA needs miracle to avoid lockout
Click to expand...

I think Barkley should negotiate the next CBA. I mean, the players will definitely listen to Barkley. And the owners will be disarmed by his charming klutziness and Everyman candor. Why not? Sure as hell beats Stern, a short old rich Jewish man in a $10,000 suit who probably makes more annually than the Big Three in Miami combined.

#19 Spacemoth, Jun 28, 2011
jsmee2000 Contributing Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2003

Messages:

2,184

Likes Received:

171

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ian_thomsen/06/28/nba.labor.talks/

League, players put season's gains at risk with looming lockout

Ian Thomsen

Unless the NBA owners and players are suddenly able to agree on how to resolve a difference of opinion worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually, the players are going to be locked out Friday and the 2011-12 season will be officially put at risk.

It's hard to believe that such a miserable epilogue could follow so entertaining and popular a season as the NBA enjoyed up through a couple weeks ago. But that was then and this is now: The league claims 22 teams are operating in red ink and that the current system no longer suffices.

The owners intend to create a new system that ensures profitability for each franchise. Their argument is that anyone who spends the going rate for an NBA franchise should not be asked in addition to lose money on an annual basis. The league cannot grow otherwise, they say.

The players respond that the owners can resolve their problems through revenue-sharing (something they are negotiating among themselves even as they conduct separate talks with the players' union) as well as other fixes and minor cutbacks that altogether will enable small-market teams -- those that are run wisely -- to succeed financially. The players are not interested in absorbing major salary reductions in order to subsidize owners and front offices that routinely make bad decisions.

There are two major issues at play. Most important is the percentage of revenues that will go to the players, who currently receive 57 percent of NBA income (minus a few categories, such as the money that comes from arena naming rights, suites and so on). The players recoil at the owners' insistence that their share drop below 50 percent (based on the current formula). In reply, the union has offered to absorb an average of $100 million less per year over a five-year period, a proposal that commissioner David Stern termed "modest."

Nothing can be more important than arriving at a final decision on how much money the owners will keep and how much will be allocated to the players. Once they've reached that monumental agreement, then many of the other issues turn into negotiations on how the money should be delivered.

The other issue is the owners' desire for some form of a hard cap on player salaries, which would prevent the richest franchises from outspending the less rich. Stern has referred to the latest owners' offer as a "flex cap," in which the floor and ceiling for each team's budget would be subject to negotiation with the players. Union president Derek Fisher dismissed the plan as another derivation of a hard cap.

The players insist that a hard cap would reduce player movement and lead to the death of guaranteed contracts for most players. They foresee a hard cap leading to an environment in which the best players receive most of the money, while the majority of players wrestle over the remainder. Imagine the selfishness of teammates competing against each for touches and shots, they warn.

The outcome of the hard-cap negotiations will be significant, regardless of the eventual split in revenues. The hard-cap debate represents a philosophical difference between the two sides on how the NBA should be operated. For the first time in modern memory, it puts the players on the high-ground position of defending the health of the league.

The players have long been cast as seeking to bleed the owners in collective bargaining, to grab as much money as possible without regard for the long-term consequences to the NBA. Of course the players still want as much money as they can get, but by arguing now against a hard cap, the players are also fighting to maintain a system that succeeded in creating more championship-contending teams than we've seen in the modern era (dating back to the 1979 arrival of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird). A hard-cap system would, according to the players, result in fewer deeply talented teams and, therefore, the NBA itself would be damaged.

The union also fears that player movement will be restricted by a hard cap, which means the league won't benefit from the kind of endlessly hyped speculation around LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh that created large mainstream audiences throughout season. For the first time, the players can maintain a straight face when they claim to be fighting on behalf of fans.

But the owners' retort is not without validity either: that the current system is doomed to fail, and if the core problem of unprofitability is not resolved then everyone -- including players and fans -- will ultimately suffer.

So far these negotiations have been relatively free of vitriol, but civility may be doomed as the deadline approaches. When dozens of players arrived last week at a negotiating session wearing identical T-shirts that read STAND, it was their attempt at a statement of unity -- that they would stand together even if they are locked out. No doubt the owners didn't appreciate it.
David Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver have insisted that the league desperately wants to avoid a lockout.

In recent weeks both sides have made compromises based on their original proposals, which from the beginning were viewed as extreme positions from which to bargain toward the middle. The reality is that the two sides are unlikely over the next several days to resolve their differing views of how the revenues should be divided.

The owners are now offering players a 10-year plan that would guarantee them $2 billion in salary and benefits annually; the players say it would amount to a salary cut in all but the last year of the plan.

Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver have insisted that the league wants desperately to avoid a lockout -- even an abbreviated exclusion will turn away fans and income while hurting the overall business in a variety of ways. Yet the threat of a lockout has always been the owners' biggest hammer.

If the players are compelled eventually to accept some form of large cutback in pay, they are unlikely to surrender to it this week -- five months before they receive their first paycheck for next season. As hard as both sides are working to negotiate an acceptable settlement before the collective bargaining agreement expires June 30, the pressure to complete a new deal won't heighten until training camps approach and both sides face the loss of some or all of the 82-game season. That's when the time for bluffing will expire, forcing the players and owners to understand and respect each other's positions, for better or for worse.

In the end it comes down to the type of agreement that will be reached by the two sides. Will they find compromise on a new deal that minimizes the collateral damage? Or will they instead agree to damage their prospects for the future, squander the gains in popularity earned over the past year, and convince fans to become disillusioned and discouraged?
Click to expand...

#20 jsmee2000, Jun 28, 2011

(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Page 1 of 8

Share This Page