Decertification

[JCSunsfan]

The players are a joke:

- the team respresentatives can not even show up on time for official meetings
- they could not even communicate the proposals to the players

and now this disclaimer of interest. It is clear to me that these spoiled NBA athletes have absolutely no idea what real life and work is like. They got offered a great deal with fully guaranteed contracts. To be honest it is joke they even got such a good deal. They get so many privileges they can sign a contract and have no risk even if they are lazy slobs that do not work at all the owners must still pay them.
The players do not take any risk, as soon as they sign a contract they can do whatever they want basically.

I am with you on this one. I would love to see the NBA with non-guaranteed contracts like the NFL. The NBA has had a significantly better labor agreement (for players) than the NFL. Teams are crippled financially through albatros contracts, and they cannot see how the previous labor agreement is destroying the league in the present economic circumstances.

 

[Griffin]

Wojnarowski:

Too many of the player reps didn’t know the difference between a disclaimer of interest, decertification and “Dancing with the Stars” when they walked into that meeting. As it usually goes in these labor talks, whoever gets the players’ ears last can talk them in and out of almost any directive. The agents were locked out, cell phones confiscated at the door, and Hunter had a captive audience with some big fancy antitrust lawyers to make his case. Too many of those player reps are young kids who were given the task as a locker-room punishment, or older guys looking for the free annual meeting in the Caribbean.

Hunter should’ve been out recruiting the best of the best for this labor fight, but why would he want Shane Battier(notes) in that room, challenging him, asking him like he did in June: Why are you still taking a salary when the NFL’s DeMaurice Smith gave up his during the lockout?

Hunter sold a plan that – surprise, surprise – keeps him on his $2.5 million salary, keeps him in charge of the court battle. But most of all, this move gives the NBA a much better chance of selling a judge on Stern’s charges that this was a charade, a phony negotiating tactic.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...w-wojnarowski_nba_labor_players_owners_111511

 

[gmabel830]

I'm not a lawyer, and really not all that smart, but with the whol decertification/anti-trust thing, I don't see why the players almost immediately started exploring overseas options from pretty much right when the lockout started. Isn't it hard to argue that the NBA is a monopoly and depriving people of the right to work when some of your players go off and sign million dollar contracts with another professional basketball league? They probably only consider domestic in a US anti-trust suit, but it still seemed like a dumb strategy from the beginning.

 

[SweetD]

NBA should try to be more like the NFL. No guaranteed contracts and signing bonus is the only thing that is guaranteed Just look at some of the players that have recieved huge contracts never to play again.

 

[SunsTzu]

NBA should try to be more like the NFL. No guaranteed contracts and signing bonus is the only thing that is guaranteed Just look at some of the players that have recieved huge contracts never to play again.

If the owners win in court their could be a lot of radical changes including a hard cap(which pretty much ensures non guaranteed contracts).

Ironically if the players win in court chances are some teams will likely have to contract, costing them jobs and with no CBA there will be no spending floor teams have to meet. So while Dwight Howard and Lebron are making their 50m a year in New York and LA the average player will be taking a hit and the players overall likely won't see anywhere near 50% of the revenue. Also with no CBA there will be no cap on the % agents can charge.

The only winners if this continues to get dragged out will be the lawyers.

 

[Griffin]

Ironically if the players win in court chances are some teams will likely have to contract, costing them jobs and with no CBA there will be no spending floor teams have to meet. So while Dwight Howard and Lebron are making their 50m a year in New York and LA the average player will be taking a hit and the players overall likely won't see anywhere near 50% of the revenue. Also with no CBA there will be no cap on the % agents can charge.

I really don't see how the players can win this in court. I don't see what legal ground they have. NBA isn't trying to do anything drastically different from all other US sports leagues. The proposal they made is more lax and player friendly than what the NHL and NFL has implemented. Are they all guilty of antitrust violations?

The way I see it, the NBA is not really a free market, because teams share revenue, exchange players, hold drafts, and collaborate on other things you wouldn't see in a free market system. So individual teams should not be viewed as separate entities that can fully compete with each other for players' services, as would happen in a free market. Players, however, are not forced to sign with any of the NBA teams. They are free to sign with any of the hundreds of basketball leagues around the world or even form their own league.

Now if NBA was truly a free market (no cap, no maximums, etc), then smaller teams would never be able to compete, both financially and on the court, with the few large market teams. Players call for increased revenue sharing, but there would be no revenue sharing on a free market. So small market teams would either have to fold, or significantly reduce operating costs (by slashing player salaries). Then NBA could break into different leagues for different levels of teams, with promotions and delegations like in most European sports leagues. The end result would be that very few of the 450 current NBA players would make the kind of salaries they make today. without a maximum, the superstars would make a whole lot more, but without a minimum, the rest of the players would make significantly less. Small market teams competing in the lowest level league would pay their players not much more than what D-League teams pay. A free market economy in the NBA would be disastrous for most NBA players.

 

[elindholm]

The way I see it, the NBA is not really a free market, because teams share revenue, exchange players, hold drafts, and collaborate on other things you wouldn't see in a free market system. So individual teams should not be viewed as separate entities that can fully compete with each other for players' services, as would happen in a free market. Players, however, are not forced to sign with any of the NBA teams. They are free to sign with any of the hundreds of basketball leagues around the world or even form their own league.

Exactly! This paragraph should be required reading.

 

[BC867]

Players, however, are not forced to sign with any of the NBA teams. They are free to sign with any of the hundreds of basketball leagues around the world or even form their own league.

Addressing just this point, it is true that players are not forced to sign with any of the NBA teams.

But most of the NBA teams are in the native country of most of its players, it is the premiere league in the world and no country can compete with the potential advertising revenue a lot of players have at their disposal.

That being said, paying millions of dollars to a bunch of jocks for playing games is obscene.

 

[SunsTzu]

Exactly! This paragraph should be required reading.

While I personally agree the only court ruling in this type of situation I know of is American Needle vs the NFL. In that case the supreme court ruled the NFL is unincorporated and each team is it's own independent business.

I still find it unlikely the players will take this to trial and less likely they'd win an antitrust case.

 

[Griffin]

But most of the NBA teams are in the native country of most of its players, it is the premiere league in the world and no country can compete with the potential advertising revenue a lot of players have at their disposal.

Right, but I don't think that alone justifies their claim in court that the NBA's lockout is preventing them from earning a living. They have other opportunities to earn income playing basketball.

 

[Griffin]

While I personally agree the only court ruling in this type of situation I know of is American Needle vs the NFL. In that case the supreme court ruled the NFL is unincorporated and each team is it's own independent business.

This is an interesting case that I wasn't aware of. After reading up on this case a bit, I am not sure if the final ruling actually extends to all business operations (specifically labor-related) or just to this specific case that dealt with intellectual property (i.e. team logos, etc).

Part of the ruling was that the NFL may be subject to antitrust laws, although it can still act as a single entity, so long as those actions are not anticompetitive. But of course with labor-related issues we have collective bargaining which is exempt from antitrust laws. So, for example, if the league tried to restrict player movement without bargaining with the players union by enacting its own set of rules, that could be seen as a unilateral, anticompetitive measure and an antitrust violation. However, the league has not done that.

So, from reading some of these reports, it looks like the the players will now argue that without a union, the NBA is no longer exempt from antitrust protection and cannot legally lockout players, and the league will argue that the players dissolved the union precisely for the sole purpose of being able to make that argument (NFL won a similar case earlier this year). The players will also argue that they had no choice but to disband because the NBA effectively ended collective bargaining by presenting them with an ultimatum. And the NBA will argue that they have clearly stated that they will continue to negotiate with the union indefinitely, only that their offer will "reset" to a more restrictive one.

I think the courts will see that the players are only filing those lawsuits in order to gain leverage in their negotiations. The only question is, will the owners relent a little bit in order to save the season, or will they wait for the court decision which, even though it will likely be in NBA's favor, will come long after the season has already been lost.

 

[SunsTzu]

So, from reading some of these reports, it looks like the the players will now argue that without a union, the NBA is no longer exempt from antitrust protection and cannot legally lockout players, and the league will argue that the players dissolved the union precisely for the sole purpose of being able to make that argument (NFL won a similar case earlier this year). The players will also argue that they had no choice but to disband because the NBA effectively ended collective bargaining by presenting them with an ultimatum. And the NBA will argue that they have clearly stated that they will continue to negotiate with the union indefinitely, only that their offer will "reset" to a more restrictive one.

Yeah, NBA players didn't learn from the NFLPA mistakes and still are being represented by the exact same people. Will be difficult to argue their disbanding is nothing more than a negotiation tactic.

The whole ultimatum thing likely won't hold much water either since the NBA continued to negotiate even after giving earlier deadlines. One of the most damning things about which side is negotiating in good faith is the fact the independent mediator that was brought in provided 6 compromises to the proposals each side had. The owners agreed to 5 of the 6, the players agreed with 0.

I really think the owners are holding all the cards in this one. While I'm sure they are disappointed the players dissolved the union I doubt it caught them by surprise and are prepared to see this through. Most the owners have nothing to lose since they're losing money either way, the players as a whole will lose no matter what happens from here on out.

 

[elindholm]

The only question is, will the owners relent a little bit in order to save the season, or will they wait for the court decision which, even though it will likely be in NBA's favor, will come long after the season has already been lost.

I'd be amazed if any part of the season is salvaged. From the beginning, each side has been prepared to sacrifice the season in order to make a point. I think this is what most of those in charge have really wanted all along.

 

[Griffin]

From the beginning, each side has been prepared to sacrifice the season in order to make a point. I think this is what most of those in charge have really wanted all along.

And yet, when all is said and done, there will be a new CBA and the players will be very lucky if they get anything above 47%/hard cap. They would have wasted a whole season arguing over mid-level exceptions and end up at best in the same place next summer, or with a much worse deal.

 

[SunsTzu]

And yet, when all is said and done, there will be a new CBA and the players will be very lucky if they get anything above 47%/hard cap. They would have wasted a whole season arguing over mid-level exceptions and end up at best in the same place next summer, or with a much worse deal.

The league would probably be better for it in the long run imo. I've felt the NBA system was broke for several years and the last offer they made was more of a band aid. A hard cap and more favorable revenue sharing(not just the split with the players but between owners too) would go a long way to leveling the playing field.

 

[Joe L]

That being said, paying millions of dollars to a bunch of jocks for playing games is obscene.

Not when the league pimps the likenesses of these players to make profit. These players are just potential cash cows to this league and owners. From the time these kids leave High School, Colleges and NBA are already licking their chops to get their hands on these kids. These kids are used from the time they commit to a college. They make tons of money for the schools, and they make money for the league.
You look at draft, you literally, hit the lottery with these kids.
The NBA doesn't make these players, the players are the product the NBA pushes. The League is only as good as the product.

I was reading an article about Lebron. Lebron in Cleveland raised the value of the team 300%. They automatically lost about 30% of after he left for Miami. That shows you how much of an impact one player in this league will line the pockets of an owner.

I don't like this one bit but I'll side with the players. They readily dropped from 57% BRI to 52% as a token of willingness to work. All the Commish and owners...err...some owners gave were ultimatums.

 

[Joe L]

Right, but I don't think that alone justifies their claim in court that the NBA's lockout is preventing them from earning a living. They have other opportunities to earn income playing basketball.

Opportunities to play overseas wouldn't stand up in court. The court's reach doesn't extend that far.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Not when the league pimps the likenesses of these players to make profit. These players are just potential cash cows to this league and owners. From the time these kids leave High School, Colleges and NBA are already licking their chops to get their hands on these kids. These kids are used from the time they commit to a college. They make tons of money for the schools, and they make money for the league.
You look at draft, you literally, hit the lottery with these kids.
The NBA doesn't make these players, the players are the product the NBA pushes. The League is only as good as the product.

I was reading an article about Lebron. Lebron in Cleveland raised the value of the team 300%. They automatically lost about 30% of after he left for Miami. That shows you how much of an impact one player in this league will line the pockets of an owner.

I don't like this one bit but I'll side with the players. They readily dropped from 57% BRI to 52% as a token of willingness to work. All the Commish and owners...err...some owners gave were ultimatums.

I don't really follow your logic here at all. But, if you're basing anything on Lebron/Cleveland you're looking at a unique situation that has no relationship to the rest of the league. You're talking about an incredible talent who was already a well established celebrity before he entered into the league AND he was drafted to play for his local team. Superstars certainly do raise the exposure and revenue for a franchise and every now and then a Lebron or a Yao comes along but they are few and far between.

Steve

 

[elindholm]

That being said, paying millions of dollars to a bunch of jocks for playing games is obscene.

It's easy to get behind this cliche, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Our society values entertainment highly, and I'm okay with that. It's not saving lives, but the human animal has evolved (ahem, if you believe that) to the point where it can aspire to more than mere survival. The historic great works of literature or art that we celebrate are just entertainment too, when you get down to it.

I don't know what a surgeon's schedule is like, but let's say that he "saves" maybe 1000 lives a year. That's a big deal. But a good professional athlete entertains tens or even hundreds of millions of people a year. Maybe that entertainment helps those people relieve some stress so that they can do their own jobs better, for the benefit of society. Or maybe the athletes inspire their fans to engage in more physical activity of their own.

I don't feel like looking up Nash's salary for last season, but let's say it was $15 million. (I think it was less.) And let's say that I'm one of a million fans world-wide who particularly enjoy watching Nash play. Would I, personally, pay Nash $15 -- that's my share, among the million fans -- to play for a season? Of course.

The money in sports is there for a reason. The players are very, very good at what they do, and what they do impacts uncountable numbers of people. It's not a matter of life or death, but would you really deny humanity the opportunity to be entertained by some of the most talented members of the species?

 

[Joe L]

I don't really follow your logic here at all. But, if you're basing anything on Lebron/Cleveland you're looking at a unique situation that has no relationship to the rest of the league. You're talking about an incredible talent who was already a well established celebrity before he entered into the league AND he was drafted to play for his local team. Superstars certainly do raise the exposure and revenue for a franchise and every now and then a Lebron or a Yao comes along but they are few and far between.

Steve

I'm just rebutting the statement that paying "jocks" million of dollars to play games is obscene. I say it isn't. Not when you look at the lucrative money the League makes off the talent they literally fight over to get.
And I totally disagree about Lebron's situation being unique. LeBron not only helped his team's stock, but he helped sellout away games for other teams.
Blake Griffin was the biggest single player draw outside of Staples last season. I'm sure he helped other owners sell out games. LeBron isn't unique, there are a lot of players that can do that. This is a player driven league, and they should get what they deserve.

 

[Joe L]

It's easy to get behind this cliche, but I'm not sure I agree with it. Our society values entertainment highly, and I'm okay with that. It's not saving lives, but the human animal has evolved (ahem, if you believe that) to the point where it can aspire to more than mere survival. The historic great works of literature or art that we celebrate are just entertainment too, when you get down to it.

I don't know what a surgeon's schedule is like, but let's say that he "saves" maybe 1000 lives a year. That's a big deal. But a good professional athlete entertains tens or even hundreds of millions of people a year. Maybe that entertainment helps those people relieve some stress so that they can do their own jobs better, for the benefit of society. Or maybe the athletes inspire their fans to engage in more physical activity of their own.

I don't feel like looking up Nash's salary for last season, but let's say it was $15 million. (I think it was less.) And let's say that I'm one of a million fans world-wide who particularly enjoy watching Nash play. Would I, personally, pay Nash $15 -- that's my share, among the million fans -- to play for a season? Of course.

The money in sports is there for a reason. The players are very, very good at what they do, and what they do impacts uncountable numbers of people. It's not a matter of life or death, but would you really deny humanity the opportunity to be entertained by some of the most talented members of the species?

Totally agree with this, nice post. Entertainment is at a premium, and society made it that way. I mean, look at us "diehards", we're on a board talking about the lockout, knowing we ain't going to see games for a while.

 

[AzStevenCal]

I'm just rebutting the statement that paying "jocks" million of dollars to play games is obscene. I say it isn't. Not when you look at the lucrative money the League makes off the talent they literally fight over to get.
And I totally disagree about Lebron's situation being unique. LeBron not only helped his team's stock, but he helped sellout away games for other teams.
Blake Griffin was the biggest single player draw outside of Staples last season. I'm sure he helped other owners sell out games. LeBron isn't unique, there are a lot of players that can do that. This is a player driven league, and they should get what they deserve.

I agree with this but I don't really agree with the rest of your comments here. I have no problem with players making the kind of salaries they do, Eric covered this well. I don't think you can look at that though and automatically say that therefore the players are right in their battle with the owners. If the owners were really making as much money as you seem to think, there's no way in the world they'd risk losing a season of that income.

Also, you earlier talked about all the money that colleges make off these guys and that's debatable also. There's a lot of money involved in the TV contracts but it's an expensive product also. The cost of their education isn't cheap and while the stars are certainly worth it, what about the guys that sit on the pine for each team?

As for my statement about Lebron, I still say he's fairly unique. He had a much greater impact on the Cavs financial fortunes than most stars and superstars have had. Other than Yao, I really don't think we've seen anyone in the past 10 years that had anywhere near the kind of impact that James did.

Steve

 

[Covert Rain]

Also, you earlier talked about all the money that colleges make off these guys and that's debatable also. There's a lot of money involved in the TV contracts but it's an expensive product also. The cost of their education isn't cheap and while the stars are certainly worth it, what about the guys that sit on the pine for each team?

Steve

Colleges are not building facilities every year and for the most part the amount of revenue generated by the colleges more than covers scholarship costs and the costs to run those facilities. Aside from TV revenue they are making a killing on sales of merchandise, ticket sales and concessions as well. Not to mention all the add space they sell and endorsement deals signed by the University for companies like Nike.

The last article I read was something like colleges spend 11 billion collectively each year to run their programs but still net somewhere around a billion dollars after expenses. It was something like on average 20 million in net revenue after expenses on average per school and that does not include local deals that some of the more popular schools have access to versus some of the less popular Div 1 schools.

 

[Joe L]

I agree with this but I don't really agree with the rest of your comments here. I have no problem with players making the kind of salaries they do, Eric covered this well. I don't think you can look at that though and automatically say that therefore the players are right in their battle with the owners. If the owners were really making as much money as you seem to think, there's no way in the world they'd risk losing a season of that income.

The NBA and owners get a piece of the BRI, as well as the players. Their losses are due to small market teams...Location location location. Why can't the owners create a system where their share gets split evenly instead of trying to recoup the losses from the players? Seems to me that the more profitable teams don't want to do this so they take more from the players. I don't think that's right. If the teams shared revenue like most leagues, I seriously don't think there would be any problems. The players already gave up 5% of the previous BRI. From my understanding, that was to cover the losses. What more do they want?

Also, you earlier talked about all the money that colleges make off these guys and that's debatable also. There's a lot of money involved in the TV contracts but it's an expensive product also. The cost of their education isn't cheap and while the stars are certainly worth it, what about the guys that sit on the pine for each team?

What's debatable? That the NCAA isn't making a profit off of these young guys? Aside from the players taking a year of education as a consolation prize, the NCAA is a business first, and I'm sure it a lucrative business that makes tons of profit.

As for my statement about Lebron, I still say he's fairly unique. He had a much greater impact on the Cavs financial fortunes than most stars and superstars have had. Other than Yao, I really don't think we've seen anyone in the past 10 years that had anywhere near the kind of impact that James did.

Steve

Well, my point still stands. Lebron not only carried the Cavs, but he is also,arguably, the face of the league. He carried everyone. Do you think he deserves 14-15 million a season for what he's done for the league? Kobe? Howard? How about the new faces? DRose? Griffin?
These special players are part of a union so what they do for this league, makes it possible for the rank and file to make a good living.
My problem with this is that the profitable teams don't want to share the wealth. Instead, they want to take more of that pie, and make it harder for a player to move to a team he wants to play for. They're taking away the flexibility of the players so some are forced to stay in Toronto and help them make a profit. In my eyes, it's more of a fight between "the haves, and have nots" owners. The players are just the target as a result of not working out there own problems. The players have bargained in good faith, the League has not.

 

[Joe L]

Great interview with Ric Bucher about the lockout.

http://audio.1080thefan.com/a/48683317/ric-bucher-espn-nba-analyst.htm