My Common Sense Compromise to End the Lockout Today

COMMUNISM

Yeah, that's the answer!!!

Your #2 is a purely centralized communist system...right? You really think the owners would agree to splitting revenue/profits equally? What if there was a year of losses? What then? Stern funds the debt to the owner's suppliers?

And how does the league office make sure all the money is reported and shared equally? Would they become a central collection depository of some sort?

Dude, what MBA school did you go to...in Moscow?

 

That's 110%.

 

Your system rewards poorly run franchises and punishes well run franchises.

 

Parts of this have been bantered around a bit. But your plan is inherently based upon true revenue sharing, which the NBA seems more and more likely to avoid. That fact alone draws into question their true motive of "competitive balance" because that alone would do the most to improve that with no other changes in NBA economics.

Also, the argument right now is that the 57% is too much an initial cut of the pie to run the team with the ability for a profit. Especially now, there is no way the owners would ever go that high again.

 

Communism, ugh, almost as dangerous as unregulated capitalism.

 

Not only that, it still leaves the owners unprofitable since they can't make money at 57% of revenue. This would be a total win for players in that they get higher aggregate salaries.

The original poster conflates profits and revenues, which is odd for someone who says they have an MBA. This last chunk:

If the league is making money as the players say it is, then this is a win/win for them. If the league is losing money as the owners say it is, then they get to spread the risk around to the players too. Now, both players and owners have an incentive to make the league profitable.

Is totally wrong. All it means is that players want high revenues. Owners want higher profits. The two are totally different things - and it's the players' salaries that are preventing the profits in the first place.

 

Yes, I understand. That's no different than the current system. Owners are currently giving 57% of revenue to players - that's the whole problem. The salary cap ALREADY moves based on if revenues go up and down, so that's not the issue except that you accelerate that move by changing old salaries.

The owners are saying that they can't make money giving 57% of their revenues to the players - period. Leaving that in place doesn't fix the problem at all.

The only thing your suggestion does is re-allocate how the money is distributed to the players, but it doesn't change the total of amount of money being distributed.

 

If the players are taking a higher percentage of the revenues, then the players make more while the owners make less. That's the whole reason for fighting over the 50% vs 52.5% vs 57%.

 

Dude, your definition of profit sharing is between one company and its employees. You are describing profit/loss sharing across multiple companies whereby they pool all their revenue and split it. You are describing a classless system between franchises -- i.e., they all operate with same amount of money -- in your example, $140m. You are describing a communist economic model.

Major,

What #2 states is taking all the revenues and splitting them into 30 equal shares -- all owners get the same % of revenue. That is nowhere close to the current system. The owners don't split revenue amongst themselves like that.

 

Players should keep gunning for their throats. The NBA is nothing without star players, those star players, lets be honest, don't need the NBA platform to earn their money. They can create a new league or play elsewhere. Owners need to accept that running an NBA franchise just isn't going to be as profitable as they'd like. That's how I see it.

That's why I don't necessarily side with the owners.

 

But that's the whole problem. The math works at any level, but it leaves the same problems at any level. If the current system doesn't work at 57%, then yours won't. If the current system works at 50%, then yours will. So your suggestion does nothing to resolve the current issue, which is all about the 5.

No, the current system doesn't do that. It lowers the salary cap next year, and there's an escrow fund so salaries already get reduced if they exceed 57% in the current system.

Again, your solution doesn't address any of the league's financial problems.