If NBA players are going to Europe to play, then can the owners pull an old switcheroo and sign the top players from Europe to play in the US? And can an NBA player opt out of the player's union in any sort of way to join this "new" Euro-NBA? Benefits to both: 1) Top Euro players could still draw sub-par crowds to pay for fixed costs, like rent and management salary. 2) Taking the top Euro players out of Europe leaves a void in top tier contracts for NBA players to fill.
An employer can generally use replacement workers (players in this case) during a lockout. However, the NBA seems to made the business decision not to in this case, probably becasue the income drawn from playing with replacement players won't even offset the cost to open the gates and operate the arenas.
I think they can not use other players unless it is a strike, the owners are the ones who locked them out. DD
I doubt it. Aside from being a horrific idea from a business perspective - as the NFL found out in 1987 - from a legal perspective, IIRC the NBA and the major European leagues do have a FIBA affiliation/accreditation which gives FIBA some sort of rubber-stamp approval on international transfers;, though it's anybody's guess on if a court of law would agree.
I would tune in to watch this more than I watched last season. Could be interesting. Also, throw some Harlem Globetrotters out there. While we're at it, how about Hakeem and Calvin Murphy play 10 mins a game?
Can't the league just do a 15 round draft and offer the rookies the contract the owners want. I bet you those college players will line up like sheep.
I believe the Euro players will have to apply paper work to be drafted in the draft. If no one drafts them, then they can sign with whomever. But I do believe they have to declare for the NBA draft.
This. With a lockout, since they are not having games at all, it is essentially a temporary dissolution of the teams, so they can justify not paying them. I'm pretty sure that if they were to have any type of league with these same teams, they would have to start to honor the contracts of the players already signed negating the purpose and strategy of a lockout. Think of it this way. A restaurant owner hires a bunch a chefs to contracts to work for him for 1 year stating that he will pay them $X over that time. After 2 months, he realizes he is going to lose money, so he closes down the restaurant temporarily in order to get his chefs to agree to cheaper contracts. Those chefs can obvious find other jobs elsewhere if they want to. They have that choice. However, that owner cannot re-open the restaurant with other chefs or even start a new restaurant with other chefs, while still refusing to pay his original chefs. It would be legitimate cause for a civil suit of breach of contract against the restaurant owner, and he would have to pay the original chefs.
You can't replace union workers due to a lockout. That is against the law. You would have to lay them off, and then their benefits kick in. big difference. For NBA players, laying them off is equivalent to waiving them...contract must be paid!
The NBA can't sign any players that are under contract and getting paid in Europe. There is not a single "top" player in Europe that does not have a fully guaranteed contract.
What about D-Leaguers and/or college players? Can the teams just sign all those guys. I'm sure they'd all be happy to play for league minimum.
Keep it simple. We are talking about players who are part of the NBA Players Union. Which means they have NBA contracts. everyone else is free game within the spirits of FIBA....ie NBA does not apply to anyone not signed to an NBA contract.
