Is it fair for Nike to pay LeBron extra for him to move to a big market?

[Muggum]

The word is that Nike is encouraging LeBron to leave the Cavs for a big market team (read: either the Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics), and is prepared to reimburse him for whatever money he'd sacrifice by signing with someone else (per league rules, no one can pay him as much as the Cavs).

Does this seem fair? Isn't it a direct subversion of the salary cap? Nike, in effect, pays some of LeBron's 'salary,' and it doesn't count against the Lakers' or Bulls' or Knicks' or Celtics' cap?

The commissioner should police this sort of thing, but believe me, he won't. David Stern wants... NEEDS... LeBron to leave the Cavs for one of those four teams. The benefit to the NBA would be incalcuable. He looked the other way when the Lakers broke tampering rules to lure Shaq to LA from Orlando.

Sucks, huh?

 

[nothin' but net]

I don't see how Stern has any say in the matter. It is simply an endorsement contract. Nike can pay him whatever they want. If it is better for their business to have him in a bigger market, and they want to pay him to move, I don't see how the league can forbid it.

Does it bastardize the game? Definately. Does it give bigger markets an advantage? Definately. Would Stern interfere? Definately not. Marquee players in big markets don't just benefit Nike and Gatorade, they benefit the league. I am quite sure that Stern would rather have LeBron, Garnett and Pat Burke in bigger markets. (OK, maybe he could care less about Burke.)

 

[devilalum]

Sucks but Nike can pay him whatever they want.

I don't see how the league can do anything about it. It's not like another team is pulling strings. Lebron also has the right to go wherever he wants if he follows the rules for doing so.

 

[Silverbullet]

I wounder how Nike would feel about LB along side Amare that would be awesome! Just dreaming zzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Mainstreet]

The league makes it's own rules, so if an endorsement interferes with the way the league is run (where a player plays), it only makes sense that the league can make rules (or already have on the book rules) that pertain to such.

IMO. the commisioner may not have control over Nike, but he can certainly make sure Nike is not conducting business that is detrimental to the league.

IMO, this constitutes tampering, even if it is an outside party, because it interferes with the way the league is run.

Really, this amounts to a player having a secondary employer. The league should control this like most employers have rules for secondary employment (moonlighting).

If Lebron wants to just work for Nike, so be it. However, if he wants to work for the NBA, the league, should have control of it's own affairs. Nike should not be able to interfere with league business just like gambling or organized crime should not be able to interfere.

Whether the Commissioner wants to put his foot down is another matter.

 

[planaria]

If NCAA is able to avoid kids from receive money, I think it shoudnt be impossible impose some rule to NBA avoid this type of clausule in contracts.

 

[George O'Brien]

I'm not convinced LeBron would let Nike dictate unless the Cavs really fall apart. It is hard to imagine how hard it would be for a guy from just outside town to leave. It is bad enough for the typical free agent, but to have every friend from HS and the neighborhood hating you is pretty hard.

 

[Joe Mama]

This guy has rich beyond belief already, and he has an $80 million deal from Cleveland sitting on the table. I actually think this is one case where the money might not be the biggest factor in a player movement decision. I think he will try to get to the team he feels gives him the best shot at a championship.

Joe

 

[SactownSunsFan]

Believe me, if the league wanted to control Nike they could. Why? Because the league has a bigger influence on the shoes people buy than the actual shoe company. How bad would Nike drop, if say, the NBA signed an exclusive contract with Reebok as the official game shoe, ala their deal with Spalding? It may hurt the league in the short term, but it'd recover in the long run. Nike on the other hand...

To answer your question, no I don't think it's fair, and I don't think the NBA cares, because like others have stated it would be good financially for the league. It's up to LeBron really- does he continue to play hometown legend in Ohio, or does he make himself look greedy and go for the money in a major city?

 

[abomb]

The commissioner should police this sort of thing, but believe me, he won't. David Stern wants... NEEDS... LeBron to leave the Cavs for one of those four teams. The benefit to the NBA would be incalcuable. He looked the other way when the Lakers broke tampering rules to lure Shaq to LA from Orlando.

Sucks, huh?

Can you provide some more info on this?

 

[Bada0Bing]

Yes, it is totally fair. LeBron is operating totally within the rules of the CBA. He can go and sign somewhere for the minimum if he wants to. Where is it written that he must accept the largest contract presented to him?

 

[Gaddabout]

I wounder how Nike would feel about LB along side Amare that would be awesome! Just dreaming zzzzzzzzzzzz.

I know you were just dreaming out loud and weren't really trying to make a point, but in case anyone cares, this kind of deal definitely hurts Phoenix. We are considered a medium-sized market. Though the City of Phoenix is in the Top 10 in population, the metro area is not nearly as big compared to other metro areas, and the Phoenix/Prescott Metro area is a poor performer in terms of media. Imagine if a shoe company whispered the same kind of notions in Amare's ears.

The latest Nielsen Designated Market Areas put Phoenix/Prescott at 14th in the country in size, just ahead of markets like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland/Akron, and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. Our market checks in with about 1.66 million TV homes (1.5 percent of the country), which pales in comparison to the Top 5:

1. New York, 7.375 million (6.7%)
2. Los Angeles, 5.536 million (5%)
3. Chicago, 3.4 million (3.1%)
4. Philly, 2.9 million (2.6%)
5. Boston, 2.375 million (2.1%)

The Bay Area, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and Houston round out the Top 10, meaning the NBA holds potential captive to almost 30% of the nation's televisions in just 10 cities.

In the NBA, Phoenix rates just a hair higher at 12th, but the raw numbers still mean Phoenix is classified as a "mid-level" market. If we give more foot room for the networks and the shoe companies to run the NBA, we might as well bow out and let them have a six-team league like they seem to want. If Nike is really encouraging LeBron to leave Cleveland, the No. 16 DMA in the country, for a bigger market, NBA lawyers need to start boning up on their cases of precedence to blow that agreement out of the water.

 

[abomb]

I know you were just dreaming out loud and weren't really trying to make a point, but in case anyone cares, this kind of deal definitely hurts Phoenix. We are considered a medium-sized market. Though the City of Phoenix is in the Top 10 in population, the metro area is not nearly as big compared to other metro areas, and the Phoenix/Prescott Metro area is a poor performer in terms of media. Imagine if a shoe company whispered the same kind of notions in Amare's ears.

The latest Nielsen Designated Market Areas put Phoenix/Prescott at 14th in the country in size, just ahead of markets like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland/Akron, and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. Our market checks in with about 1.66 million TV homes (1.5 percent of the country), which pales in comparison to the Top 5:

1. New York, 7.375 million (6.7%)
2. Los Angeles, 5.536 million (5%)
3. Chicago, 3.4 million (3.1%)
4. Philly, 2.9 million (2.6%)
5. Boston, 2.375 million (2.1%)

The Bay Area, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and Houston round out the Top 10, meaning the NBA holds potential captive to almost 30% of the nation's televisions in just 10 cities.

In the NBA, Phoenix rates just a hair higher at 12th, but the raw numbers still means Phoenix is classified as a "mid-level" market. If we give more foot room for the networks and the shoe companies to run the NBA, we might as well bow out and let them have a six-team league like they seem to want. If Nike is really encouraging LeBron to leave Cleveland, the No. 16 DMA in the country, for a bigger market, NBA lawyers need to start boning up on their cases of precedence to blow that agreement out of the water.

Great stuff. Thanks for the info.

 

[Joe Mama]

Thanks Gaddabout, even if this crap from Nike doesn't violate specific rules in the CBA it definitely violates the spirit of it.

However, I still maintain that LeBron James will try to get him to the team that gives him the best shot at a championship or championships.

Joe

 

[phxrising]

Might be a stupid question by why does "Stern need Labron either at the Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics"

I am assuming for marking reasons but could someone enlighten me, If Labron's jersey is #2 at cleavand already (2nd to Wade, Wade has been the most popular jersey since May 2005) it would seem he is making cash for the leauge no matter where he plays.



Following are the 15 most popular NBA jerseys from October 2005 until the end of The Finals based on sales at NBAStore.com and the NBA Store in New York City:
* = Bulls, Lakers, Knicks, or Celtics


1. Dwyane Wade
2. LeBron James
*3. Kobe Bryant
4. Allen Iverson
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Stephon Marbury
7. Tracy McGrady
8. Vince Carter
9. Carmelo Anthony
10. Dirk Nowitzki
11. Steve Nash
12. Ben Wallace
13. Tim Duncan
*14. Paul Pierce
15. Amare Stoudemire

 

[Divide Et Impera]

S/T to PHX for Marion/Bell and all three draft picks next year!!!!

Nash-James-Diaw-Stoudemire-Thomas

Yes! Do it!!!

Oh, to dream....

 

[Divide Et Impera]

I think even Thomas would average 20ppg in that lineup....

 

[nowagimp]

This guy has rich beyond belief already, and he has an $80 million deal from Cleveland sitting on the table. I actually think this is one case where the money might not be the biggest factor in a player movement decision. I think he will try to get to the team he feels gives him the best shot at a championship.

Joe

I'd like to believe that Joe, but THE MONEY is apparently more important than winning, and everything else, based on this years signings.

1) Big Ben breaks up the pistons to go to a team with alot of potential, at the age of what 33?.

2) Radmonivic goes to Lakers over the Clippers who are clearly a better team.
3) Tim Thomas goes to the clips for the $$$(cant blame him after that 3 mil lowball)

4) Peja goes to the Hornets??? For it could only be $$$. that will limit their future competitiveness

5) Bobby Jackson goes to the Hornets for $$$, no chances of winning.

6) JJ, last year, goes to the Hawks for clearly only $$$.

7) Mike James goes to Houston(probably over the Mavs) for $$$.

It appears that its all about money, for all these NBA players.

On the plus side

1) Sam Cassel stays with clips costing him 3 mil over 2yrs. Sam wants to win and the Hawks arent going to do that anytime soon.

 

[TucsonDevil]

I know you were just dreaming out loud and weren't really trying to make a point, but in case anyone cares, this kind of deal definitely hurts Phoenix. We are considered a medium-sized market. Though the City of Phoenix is in the Top 10 in population, the metro area is not nearly as big compared to other metro areas, and the Phoenix/Prescott Metro area is a poor performer in terms of media. Imagine if a shoe company whispered the same kind of notions in Amare's ears.

The latest Nielsen Designated Market Areas put Phoenix/Prescott at 14th in the country in size, just ahead of markets like Minneapolis/St. Paul, Cleveland/Akron, and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. Our market checks in with about 1.66 million TV homes (1.5 percent of the country), which pales in comparison to the Top 5:

1. New York, 7.375 million (6.7%)
2. Los Angeles, 5.536 million (5%)
3. Chicago, 3.4 million (3.1%)
4. Philly, 2.9 million (2.6%)
5. Boston, 2.375 million (2.1%)

The Bay Area, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Washington D.C., Atlanta, and Houston round out the Top 10, meaning the NBA holds potential captive to almost 30% of the nation's televisions in just 10 cities.

In the NBA, Phoenix rates just a hair higher at 12th, but the raw numbers still mean Phoenix is classified as a "mid-level" market. If we give more foot room for the networks and the shoe companies to run the NBA, we might as well bow out and let them have a six-team league like they seem to want. If Nike is really encouraging LeBron to leave Cleveland, the No. 16 DMA in the country, for a bigger market, NBA lawyers need to start boning up on their cases of precedence to blow that agreement out of the water.

Gaddabout - are you sure about those numbers? Phx is the 5 or 6th largest Metro in the Country? Close to 5 million population. There is a debate weather we passed Philly or not. Is that number saying "we only have 1.66 million sports fans in the Phx Metro?" or it saying we only have 1.66 million TVs in Phx Metro? Also, why isn't Tucson included in that stat? Tucson has ZERO professional team to follow. All of the PHX games are televised in Tucson, I should know, I watch them.

I don't think our market is as small at those numbers suggest. Granted, we can't approach Chicago, LA, NY or Boston - But to say that our NBA market is smaller than San Antonio or even Golden State (Bay Area) is just crazy.

 

[Gaddabout]

Gaddabout - are you sure about those numbers? Phx is the 5 or 6th largest Metro in the Country? Close to 5 million population. There is a debate weather we passed Philly or not. Is that number saying "we only have 1.66 million sports fans in the Phx Metro?" or it saying we only have 1.66 million TVs in Phx Metro? Also, why isn't Tucson included in that stat? Tucson has ZERO professional team to follow. All of the PHX games are televised in Tucson, I should know, I watch them.

I don't think our market is as small at those numbers suggest. Granted, we can't approach Chicago, LA, NY or Boston - But to say that our NBA market is smaller than San Antonio or even Golden State (Bay Area) is just crazy.

TD, I pulled the numbers directly off the Nielsen website, and they are for teh 2005-06 television season. Tucson/Sierra Vista is its own market. We're talking an additional 422K television homes. Not a lot to move up with, although the market is not small -- it's No. 71 in the country.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Phoenix Metro area rates in the Top 10. Phoenix proper, I believe, has surpassed Philly proper.

I believe Nielsen measures its DMAs within a 100-mile radius of the center of the largest city in a region. You'd have to stretch that a few miles to include Tucson. A more interesting argument might be made in 20 years, when the two metro areas begin to touch borders, creating one of the 10 largest "megapolis" in the world, and exceeding the 10 million population mark.

 

[Gaddabout]

I just checked and was correct -- the City of Phoenix proper is No. 6 or No. 5, depending on how many people you count in Philly. Phoenix is approaching 1.5 million residents.

The metro area of Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale checks in at No. 14 with over 3.7 million, according to July 2004 OMB records. Strangely, it is neck and neck with Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, which I've always associated with LA metro (No. 2 with 12.9 million). I guess that area is so expansive, their Valley is an entirely seperate market.