Quite frankly, all four options are relatively fair. At this point, both sides need to stop being babies about where a billion dollars over ten years goes, and realize that if this lasts until Christmas they'll likely EACH lose more than the amount they're fighting over*. In the words of Mick Jagger, "you can't always get what you want. But if you stop being d-bags, consider someone besides yourselves, and compromise to save your season, you just might find you get what you need." Spoiler *And that's just in the short term, without even considering the long term damage to the NBA's financials they've already done and will continue to do by angering their fans and/or making them realize they can live without the NBA.
I like the Float. If the players get the Float at that Bri% they need to make concessions and move to a NFL Type Contract structure. As a Fan I can say I want that because free agent player movement is fun to see happen. Also the possibility of picking up good players off the waiver wire would be awesome. But if I was a player I would be fighting that like it was the plague. I would hate to have to carry the label of the generation that gave away fully guaranteed contracts.
I just assumed the players were on the left since all the reports we hear are that they are the ones mostly asking for 53%.
Honestly, I think it depends on the rest of the deal. If the league wins out on the hard cap/hard tax, it should be paid for with a relative concession on the BRI. In that situation, players will have downward pressure on contract lengths and amounts guaranteed, and be subject to more business-decision-trade-actions; so they deserve a little more compensation for the risk they take and the autonomy they surrender. On the flip side, if the players manage to preserve the current soft cap, owners should keep more of the BRI so that small market owners have more money in their pockets to fund a competitive team. EDIT: I don't like the BRI band concept that lets the players' share grow with league revenues. When the NBA has a banner year, the players would gain more from the upside (as the pie and their share of the pie both grow) than the league would (with a growing pie and a shrinking share)? No, keep it fixed. Or, don't tie it to revenues -- just say let any BRI outcome stand as long as it was within the band. That might give owners some incentive to maintain some fiscal discipline.
I am a little confused about what is included in the BRI (basket ball related income). A quick search gave me that is everything, including ticket sales, parking, food, etc. What does this mean? Do the players get this on top of their salaries???
As a fan, I don't really care about the BRI split. I only care about system issues, cap, contract length, etc. because these things affect how teams are constructed, which in turn affects the quality of the product. Why should we care who makes a few millions more or less, when they are already hundreds of times richer than most of us?
Alright you've established the definition. I think that the players don't get it ON TOP of their salaries, but I think that the (for example) 52% of the BRI goes TOWARDS paying their salaries. Again, this is just my understanding of it. Someone correct me if I am wrong
What is included in Basketball Related Income (BRI)? Basketball Related Income (BRI) essentially includes any income received by the NBA, NBA Properties or NBA Media Ventures. This includes: Regular season gate receipts Broadcast rights Exhibition game proceeds Playoff gate receipts Novelty, program and concession sales (at the arena and in team-identified stores within proximity of an NBA arena) Parking Proceeds from team sponsorships Proceeds from team promotions Arena club revenues Proceeds from summer camps Proceeds from non-NBA basketball tournaments Proceeds from mascot and dance team appearances Proceeds from beverage sale rights 40% of proceeds from arena signage 40% of proceeds from luxury suites 45% - 50% of proceeds from arena naming rights Proceeds from other premium seat licenses Proceeds received by NBA Properties, including international television, sponsorships, revenues from NBA Entertainment, the All-Star Game, the McDonald's Championship and other NBA special events. Now this means though there are some revenue NOT included in the BRI. These include: proceeds from the grant of expansion teams fines luxury tax payments 60% of proceeds from arena signage 60% of proceeds from luxury suites 50% - 55% of proceeds from arena naming rights Owners take the portion NOT part of the BRI and "use it to start paying off the cost of running a club." The rest of the BRI is then split between the players and the owners based on a previously agreed upon ratio. In the past it was Players 57/ Owners 43, but now they are debating in the 50/50 to 53/47 range. That percentage the players get IS their salary. Essentially the total salaries of all the players for that season have to meet that percentage of the BRI. If they don't the owners pay the player the difference. If they go over, the players give some back to the owners. The percentage the owners get is then used to run the club in all facets necessary, with the remainder being their profit. Do realize though when everyone says a 50/50 split of BRI, it DOES NOT mean a pure split of all the profits because the owners take a small share before that split. You could argue that since the owners have to "run the team" with their share they are entitled to it, but that is totally different argument.
I think 50-50 and 47-53 were 2 numbers that were put out there a bit more in all honesty i think Fisher should take the 50-50 and that will give him so much more bargaining power with the soft cap/hard cap with the as I think the fans would realize that the players have made a concession on that end. And here's the part I find interesting: The players play BASKETBALL, they don't sit across the table with Time Warner.
You give out 50-50 the moment you know the other stuff is fair. The owners are actually trying to break the union because once they get 50-50 they will still try to get over on all the other issues as well. Players just need to create their own league, show owners they have real leverage. Plus, we would see real basketball.
This. No one REALLY cares. People only cared about the NFL because they wanted it to END and didnt want to miss ANY NFL action. People werent choosing sides, they only paid attention cuz they were nervous they had to cancel their tailgate barbecues. BRI kinda ties into the formation of "Superfriend" teams which people see as competitive imbalance. After that, its about not letting Bobby Simmons and Sasha Vujacic bloat up team salaries
They should just get rid of the BRI provision. The players get whatever their contract says and that is that.
If you care about caps and contract lengths and all that stuff, you may as well throw BRI on there too. We don't talk about it as much, but we probably should because it probably goes into the calculus of building the roster. GMs aren't only interested in their rosters' impact on salary cap; they want to know financial impacts too. And the BRI% is a giant safety net for them. Morey's prudence has been good salary-cap-wise, but financially maybe he should have spent with more reckless abandon -- have a stronger team and socialize some of the costs.
This is what I feel would be most fair. What the players are giving up is huge. The owners need to just take it.
