Well, even independent of the players' salaries, a sports league isn't a free market. A team isn't independent of it's league - it can't go set its own schedule; a new owner can't just start a team and schedule games against the Lakers; etc. The whole concept of a sports league isn't a free market because the individual teams are both individually owned businesses and part of a larger organization; they are both competitors for fans, merchandising, etc and allies for TV revenue, ticket sales, etc. So the way an entire sports league works is not like a normal free market system.
I respect that. So my question to you is do you have a problem with a guy like Rose or Durant who is clearly underpaid? Should he be entitled to rip up his contract and sign a new one? Or what about a guy that made a mistake and signed an undervalued contract, like Pippen? Or what about a guy that signed a deal but couldn't opt out when it was time to join with buddies in the top free agent offseason, like Melo?
I do think the rookie contract has now become too long. Before the NBA was different as they let the young guys develop, but now the keys are handed in much earlier like in the case of Rose and Durant. Keep in mind Durant just signed a max contract. But I think after the first two years it should be a player option now rather than a team option which would make it go to 4 years. So yea, guys like Rose and Durant, man I have no problem with them getting loads of millions. They work, they lead their team, they have the right mentality that they focus on winning and developing a winning culture(unlike Allen iverson we talkin about practice) and they deserve more. Pippen's contract would've been solved once again with shorter guaranteed contracts. he signed for market value then and signed a long term deal. During this time, he flourished anda hte league flourished which raised all of the average contracts. So under this proposed idea of short term contracts guys like him will be elgible for that deserving contract. Guys like Gilbert Arenas who got too gun friendly or Eddy Curry who must've found out about shipley donuts will get their contracts terminated rightfully so. I have no sympathy for melo really, he held a franchise that willingly spent and managed fairly well by their throat to trade him simply for different market. he has the right to leave, but he didn't want to wait till the offseason, he wanted the extension and to go where he wanted. I don't care much for these super team ideas, I like to see guys like Rose and Durant who want to be that guy and take their teams to the promise land. that said, no championships are built with oen guy, its about 5 guys and cohesiveness. But there is a difference on what Lebron did and these guys wanting more supporting pieces. All in all, I want to align the agendas of the Owners, Fans, and Players. I think there should be more incentive based bonuses than anything. I htink Dakota had it right that NFL has a system(even though theirs is a more physical injury prone) that hold the playesr accountable and make it about winning. If shaq decides to show up out of shape and doesnt instill winning(mails in playing in some games due to 'injury' as he is accused of doing), he should be held accountable, if AI thinks hes too good to practice, then he should be held accountable. If any owner overpays this or that, then he will lose that amount of money and have to pay that guy But with shorter contracts everyone is held accountable and the franchise/fan base isn't stuck with a mistake for 5 years! And if everoyne in the lockerroom from players, coaches know they are due huge bonuses if htey perform as a team, maybe they will stop complaining about shots and points and just decide we need to come together and win bc that is what will make us the most.
Forgot to add, it is players that are strictly against the above incentives, shorter guaranteed contracts, etc more so than owners.
I don't think the average NBA player or union would go for it. Here's a way for the productive rookies to get paid. However, I think the max salary raised for all players. Players on rookie contracts should be eligible for a max contract earlier. If a player is selected for the rookie or sophmore team for the Rookie Challenge, the 3rd and 4th yrs change to player options. For 2012 draft, 10 players would be selected for the 2012-13 Rookie Challenge Rookie team and 10 players would be selected for the 2013-14 Rookie Challenge Sophmore team. There would be 10-20 players from any draft eligible to opt out early. It allows early producers such as LeBron, Wade, Durant, and Rose to get max money. The raw(Evan Turner) or injury prone(Greg Oden) stay on their 3rd/4th years until teams can get some production out of those players. The player would be a restricted free agent to allow team matching. Derrick Rose would have been earning the same as LeBron in his 3rd year.
I think you got it backward. The players agree to the parameters because they need a league to exercise their "special skill set" so that they can make millions of dollars. Like I pointed out somewhere else, players have value only in the context of a league competition. They could use their skills in a park and they wouldn't be making much. You cannot compare any entertainment industry with sport leagues. People don't pay to see Movie A beat Movie B. They pay to see Movie A, period. Movies are independent of each other. A movie is good on its own merit, including its stars. That's why the market is free. Sport teams aren't independent of each other. The competition, not the skills of the players, is the product they sell. A team is good only in competition with other teams. It cannot be "good" by itself. That's why you need a league of teams cooperating together in a restrictive system. Without that, the players are worthless. Now do you see why a sport league cannot be a free market because of its very nature of existence?
I agree with all that. But that doesn't mean the system needs to be more restrictive. It's already restrictive enough and top economists have studies concluding that a salary cap doesn't make teams any more competitive. The system changes that the owners want won't result in parity or teams bing more competitive. As far as the comparison of what a player should be able to make, sports is in the entertainment industry. That's really the closest comparable. It makes no sense to compare them to "regular" fields. Either compare them to other entertainers or others in the top 1% of their field, i.e. individuals that don't simply have to do what the boss said. So sure, sports is not a free market system but the rest of my post still holds true. The proposed rule changes will result in the players making less and not being able to have as many teams bid for them, and it's no surprise that they won't agree to those paramaters.
Can't they go to other leagues like Deron Williams, Brandon Jennings and Allen Iverson? How about buying another league like the CBA and changing the rules to what they want?
true not completely true. They definitely sell the entertainment value of the skills of the players. And they sell games as an entertainment events vs other events in the city. Do you think companies buy Luxury Boxes and other extremely expensive season tickets for only the competition? If competition is all that it is about, people wouldn't show up so late and stay in the clubs and not pay attention. Definitely not true. Isn't Soccer pretty much a free market sport. Same with Euroleague Basketball. No collective bargaining agreements with very few restrictions. MLB has no salary cap and few restrictions. Also, isn't boxing a free market sport that is largely about entertainment. Most people don't really care who wins as much as they care simply to watch the event.
I agree that the competition is not "all that is" but it is the MAIN thing. I argue that without the competition, basketball skills wouldn't sell very well. The closest things people come to see the skills of players alone and not the competition are events like the ASG and dunk contest. That kind of things won't sell millions of dollars, especially if you don't have the backdrop of the real competition. How many people would want to watch the best players play an all-star game with no championship competition in the background? How would that be any different from the Harlem Globetrotters performance? Why is college hoop so popular even though the skill level is far below the NBA? Because of the competition. Soccer and MLB have some powerhouses dominate the competition. It is a viable model in terms of business. I can't say I like the competition though. I am not familiar with Euroleauge basketball so I can't comment. I think a true free market sport needs multiple viable leagues. The freedom of the market is not within a league but between the leagues. Boxing sells the violence, IMO. People come to see the fighting itself, not the result. I am not sure if you can say the same thing about basketball. See my comment above on the ASG. Also, boxing competition is a very different model. You can schedule a fight any time you want. And you become the "champion" by beating the current champion, not by winning in a tournament. Let me rehash what I said elsewhere. The system restrictions are akin to basketball rules. It affects the competition. What kind of restriction you prefer is a matter of taste. Some people prefer a more physical game and want them to allow players to do lots of pushing and shoving. Some people prefer a more finesse style. Some people want them to be very strict with traveling. Some people think letting them do acrobatic drives is good for the game. Some may want to see the ball handling skills and let the players carry the ball more. Some want to go back to the 60s where they only dribbled at the top of the ball. There is no absolute right and wrong in these issues. You may prefer a fairly restrictive free system. That's fine. But it's not because the players deserve a free system any more than the players deserve a game with a wider basketball court.
The current CBA created a competitive environment that performed very well last year. You can't describe an extreme pole to make a point, when I can refute that with the opposite pole ... competition with no basketball skill wouldn't sell very well -- like YMCA league play? see. So drop that argument. The point that you are trying to make is the competition is there, but should be improved. I contend that the owners CBA proposal will have very little, if any, impact on competition and parity.
HP, That depends upon whether the season is lost or not, IMO. If they go the entire year, I could see them implementing a competitive balance type of rule set. If they reach an agreement (what I expect to happen) I think they settle for a profit, and status quo. DD
And a higher % of the cap must be spent by each team....which means some teams that are young will have to give big yearly contracts just to get to that threshold. DD
My guess is that it might encourage SHORTER, not smaller contracts for the mid level guys like a Ben Gordon or Ron Artest. That way if you want to sign some vets to compete this year in particular, you can outspend other teams on a shorter deal.
I consider myself a casual fan since I only watch the Rockets. Since I am a Rocket only fan I don't know a lot about the inner workings of the league. But, it seems to me that the entertainment vehicle that was once the NBA has been hijacked by its so called superstars. A team can no longer make long range plans even though it is investing millions of dollars because its contracts are one sided and there is no accountability. All the risks and expenses are on the owners. Once a player signs a contract he gets paid... playing or not playing. If Hank Williams sucks the people don't buy tickets and he does not get the next date, so he does not get paid. Basketball players on the other hand can come in overweight, out of shape and under trained. They can decide not to listen to the coach the team has hired to run things and even run the coach out of town. They can sulk and not play well if they think the contract they signed is not enough anymore or they are not getting the extension they think they deserve. How can anyone even attempt to run a business when it is dealing with so many (definitely not all) undiciplined, spoiled, selfish, prima donnas. If I take the risk and put up the front money, I build or negotiate to get the stadiums built, I pay for the advertising, I hire and pay all the management and personnel, I work with all the vendors, I hire the coaches, I hire the training and medical staff, I pay for the transpotation to the game locations, I negotiate the television and cable contracts...!!!!! In other words, all the players have to do is to continue to improve their skills and entertain the public that is making all the millions of dollars they are making possible. The fans are the ones really paying for all of this. If there were no fans there would be noone to advertise to, so there would be no TV contracts, there would be no naming rights on stadiums, there would be no overpriced Nikes to sell. Imagine a player claiming he is being treated wrongly because he is offered 5 million dollars a year when the average person that would love to be able to take his family to the game only makes 30 thousand a year. The NBA should do several things... 1. Admit that they are no longer a club of ultra-rich owners that run the teams as a hobby and that the new owners are business men that have paid premium prices for their team and need the teams to be run as legitimate businesses. 2. Admit that in hindsight the last CBA was a hugh mistake where the NBA gave in to the players to keep the games going with the hope that it could be run profitably. 3. Do what the NBPA has done. Say to the public and the players... Since we have been unable to negotiate a reasonable agreement will the present group of players under the present format we are disbanning the NBA and forming a new partnership company call the NBP. There are no longer individual owners, but a privately held partnerships corporation of 30 ownership groups. Each group owns a set percentage of the new company as determined by the present value and contribution of thier previously owned teams. All teams will be managed by a board of entertainment directors that will assign players to the teams where it they are needed to provide the best entertainment value to the paying customers just as any other corporation would do. Salaries will be negotiated with each player by our HR department on a scale set by the management committee. We are one of several corporations that provide basketball as entertainment to the paying public. We will recruit globally to meet our needs, to compete for the public support with the other basketball entertainment providers around the world. We, as with any business will attempt to hire the best employees possible at the prevailing scale of the global market.
This would have to be approved by majority vote of the owners. But really, you're basically saying share all the revenues across teams and set manditory team salary limits, max and min. You don't really need a new company to do that. Also, why not just close down the 4 least profitable teams. Consolidate. When a business is clearly over stretched, companies lay off. This gives each remaining team a bigger slice of the pie (a pie that will remain just as big). And this will eventually result in the 60 worse players getting laid off, so the remaining 26 teams will be better. Contraction is easier than your idea.
I don't think contraction makes it more even, I think the best players will be bought out by the richest teams eventually unless other changes are made. Furthermore, that's also less money coming in. All of those games that would be bringing in money aren't there in the markets that lose teams.
They can find another league as easily as the owners can find replacement players. It's in the interest of both parties to work together, but that requires both sides agreeing to play.
