What percentage of BRI should players get in the new CBA?

[paulcowens]

First of all, considering the massive revenue the NBA gets, I don't believe for a moment that the owners can't break even on 43%.   Second of all, why, given the business practices we've seen in recent years to decades, why would any of you actually believe the figures the owners give?   They are almost certainly riddled with lies.  But the main point is, sports is about athletes.  They should make the bulk of the money, period.  That should be the assumption going in.  I think the split should be increased to 60% for the players.  I wouldn't give one fig for an NBA game were it not for the athletes.  Not one fig.  I wouldn't give a booger.   The athletes are the heart of this whole thing.  Pay 'em and work from there. 

[slamtheking]

I think it should be 67% of Net Profit with clear definitions of what constitutes basketball operating expenses.

Of all the objections I might have to your ideas, the first is that the owners would never go for the level of disclosure that would allow the players to feel comfortable taking a percentage of net profits.  Just look at all those big Hollywood movies that show no net profits due to accounting tricks meant to keep from paying stars who have percentage agreements as part of their contracts.

there in lies the trick to making this work.  All sources of income and expenses would have to be known and defined to make this work.  There can't be any room for "miscellaneous expenses" nor any unreported income from the players based on their NBA exposure.  There's something both sides would object to but if realized, would solve a lot of the labor dispute.

When it comes to that player income, that would include attending any trade shows or making appearances where they make money from autographs.  Shaq's record and movie career would be an excellent example of a player's outside income that should be included in the money calculation.  No way he gets a movie or record deal if he's not in the NBA therefore it counts towards those Net calculations.  (he can work it out with the union regarding if he gets creditted for that money out of his cut of the Net pool.) 
However, any player that makes money by investing his earnings in a private or public business does not have to count that towards the Net, just like owners wouldn't include their outside earnings towards the Net money pool.

It's pie-in-the-sky financial metrics that will never happen due to the greed on both sides and the inability to pin the blame of profit and loss on the opposing side BUT, if implemented it removes reasons for the work stoppages unless one side decides to change that overall percentage of the cut.

[Chris]

First of all, considering the massive revenue the NBA gets, I don't believe for a moment that the owners can't break even on 43%.   Second of all, why, given the business practices we've seen in recent years to decades, why would any of you actually believe the figures the owners give?   They are almost certainly riddled with lies.  But the main point is, sports is about athletes.  They should make the bulk of the money, period.  That should be the assumption going in.  I think the split should be increased to 60% for the players.  I wouldn't give one fig for an NBA game were it not for the athletes.  Not one fig.  I wouldn't give a booger.   The athletes are the heart of this whole thing.  Pay 'em and work from there. 

Well, first of all, breaking even is not a good business model.  I know we like to think this is just a hobby, but it is still a business, and when they are making their business plans, the goal needs to be to make money.

As for sports being about athletes, you are correct.  But the same as any business, someone needs to put up the capital, effort, and know-how to translate that talent into cash.  That is what owners do, and they need to be compensated for it, just like the players do. 

And finally, you are right that it is tough to believe that the league on the whole can't break even at 43%.  And there are teams that are absolutely making money at that number.  The problem is, there is a huge disparity in the amount of revenue between teams in different markets.  While some teams are able to make money while paying $80 million in salaries and luxury tax, other teams are hemoraging money at $60 million in salary.

And since Basketball is not a sport like baseball, where you can really compete with just young, cheap players (and the players would never agree to a baseball-like rookie structure, which is what allows baseball to deal with their cap-less structure), they need to either share more money (which is going to take a long time for them to agree to), or they are going to need to lower the cap to a number that works for the small markets, not just the bigger ones.

[spelz]

First of all, I think all professional athletes make too much money.  As a father of four, my wife and I can not afford to attend most sporting events when you add up six tickets, parking, concessions, etc.  The average sports fan has been priced out of attending games.

Secondly, on the fip-side, I think the NBA players have a legitimate complaint with the owners.  The owners do not currently include profits from the gate. or a few other income ventures, in their arguments (at least from what I have read).  The owners need to be more upfront with all their costs and profits in order to provide a venue for honest bargaining.

[nickagneta]

How many NBA teams sold in the last 20 years sold at less money than it was purchased at? How money owners sold and in the end ended up with a net loss as a whole after selling their team?

I don't know the answer to these questions but my guess is the answer isn't much above zero.

22 teams are losing money? Then act like you are losing money.

Atlanta signed Joe Johnson for 6 years/$123 million, they are about to be sold

Golden State signed David Lee to 5 years/$80 million and then got sold

Milwaukee signed Drew Gooden 5 years/$32 million and John Salmons 5 years/$39 million

Memphis signed Rudy Gay to 5 years/$82 million

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

Sorry, I believe this whole lockout/CBA thing being nothing more than a way to screw the product that entertains the fans out of money because the owners can control their free spending ways. And if they can't make money they sell the franchise and recoup back all their loses and then some making big money.

I don't by the owners stance at all. The system works, you just have to manage yourself properly and too many teams don't. It really is that simple.

But if the players give back to the BRI an amount of about 5% and the system stays relatively the same but with shorter guaranteed contracts and a one time in five year amnesty to void a contract due to non-performance, I think that would be palatable for the players.

[kozlodoev]

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

$49 million over 4 years for three rotation-caliber players is not awful.

[Chris]

How many NBA teams sold in the last 20 years sold at less money than it was purchased at? How money owners sold and in the end ended up with a net loss as a whole after selling their team?

I don't know the answer to these questions but my guess is the answer isn't much above zero.

22 teams are losing money? Then act like you are losing money.

Atlanta signed Joe Johnson for 6 years/$123 million, they are about to be sold

Golden State signed David Lee to 5 years/$80 million and then got sold

Milwaukee signed Drew Gooden 5 years/$32 million and John Salmons 5 years/$39 million

Memphis signed Rudy Gay to 5 years/$82 million

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

Sorry, I believe this whole lockout/CBA thing being nothing more than a way to screw the product that entertains the fans out of money because the owners can control their free spending ways. And if they can't make money they sell the franchise and recoup back all their loses and then some making big money.

I don't by the owners stance at all. The system works, you just have to manage yourself properly and too many teams don't. It really is that simple.

But if the players give back to the BRI an amount of about 5% and the system stays relatively the same but with shorter guaranteed contracts and a one time in five year amnesty to void a contract due to non-performance, I think that would be palatable for the players.

OK, so here is the question.  If the cap was at $70 million, and your favorite team spent only $59 million of that money, and perhaps passed on some players who would have made them significantly better teams, because they were not making enough revenue to spend up to the cap, would you still shell out $4000 per year for your season tickets?

This is the problem with the current system.  Yes, they make some dumb moves.  But those are really just the exception, and most of them are driven by the market. 

Teams are stuck trying to decide between spending extra money to try to keep the fans happy and fill the seats, or cutting salary to a point where they just can't compete, and where the fans will stop coming to the games.

Yes, owners and GMs need to have better self control, but for the good of the game, and maintaining a competitive balance, they need to move the numbers down to a point where it is sustainable for ALL markets.  If the small market teams are not able to spend to the cap level without at least breaking even, then things are just not going to work out for league.

[Fafnir]

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

$49 million over 4 years for three rotation-caliber players is not awful.

Yeah, 12 million dollars per year for role players isn't crazy. The maximum salary disorts things.

[KGs Knee]

First of all, I think all professional athletes make too much money.  As a father of four, my wife and I can not afford to attend most sporting events when you add up six tickets, parking, concessions, etc.  The average sports fan has been priced out of attending games.

In principal, I agree, players in all sports make more than they should.

I can promise you though, if the owners succeed in bringing down player salaries, they will NOT decrease ticket prices.  They will just pocket the difference.  Basically, if I have to choose between who is getting my money, I want it going to the players, but at an amount that allows owners an opportunity to make a small profit.  Afterall, the players are what I am paying to see, not guys in suits.

[PosImpos]

I can't give you a specific percentage, but I do believe that the players should make a lot less money than they currently do.  NBA players are vastly overpaid compared to most other professional sports.  Superstars are worth their enormous contracts (in fact, some of them are worth more), but the vast majority of players aren't worth the 5-10 million they make each year (guaranteed money I might add).

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

$49 million over 4 years for three rotation-caliber players is not awful.

Yeah, 12 million dollars per year for role players isn't crazy. The maximum salary disorts things.

I'd say the fact that 12 million per year for a few role players is exactly the problem.


Now, I make no claim as to whether teams are making money or not.  Surely the owners have dug themselves a hole by giving out contracts like this.  But that doesn't change the fact that the system as currently constituted needs to be changed.

[Fafnir]

I can't give you a specific percentage, but I do believe that the players should make a lot less money than they currently do.  NBA players are vastly overpaid compared to most other professional sports.  Superstars are worth their enormous contracts (in fact, some of them are worth more), but the vast majority of players aren't worth the 5-10 million they make each year (guaranteed money I might add).

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

$49 million over 4 years for three rotation-caliber players is not awful.

Yeah, 12 million dollars per year for role players isn't crazy. The maximum salary disorts things.

I'd say the fact that 12 million per year for a few role players is exactly the problem.


Now, I make no claim as to whether teams are making money or not.  Surely the owners have dug themselves a hole by giving out contracts like this.  But that doesn't change the fact that the system as currently constituted needs to be changed.

But that's my point if you limit what the Howard's, Wade's, LeBron's, and Durant's of the league can make artificially then it is the lesser players that have their paychecks boosted up. (since the players are given a fixed percentage of BRI)

The owners demanded a maximum salary and part of the deal they made to get that was they agreed to overpay role players so they could keep the star's paychecks down.

The problem isn't how the money the players get is distributed, but rather how much is going to the players in total.

[nickagneta]

How many NBA teams sold in the last 20 years sold at less money than it was purchased at? How money owners sold and in the end ended up with a net loss as a whole after selling their team?

I don't know the answer to these questions but my guess is the answer isn't much above zero.

22 teams are losing money? Then act like you are losing money.

Atlanta signed Joe Johnson for 6 years/$123 million, they are about to be sold

Golden State signed David Lee to 5 years/$80 million and then got sold

Milwaukee signed Drew Gooden 5 years/$32 million and John Salmons 5 years/$39 million

Memphis signed Rudy Gay to 5 years/$82 million

Minnesota inexplicably signed Darko Milicic 4 years/$20 million, Nikola Pekovic 4 years/$13 million and Luke Ridnour 4 years/$16 million. $49 million FOR ROLE PLAYING BENCH WARMERS ON ANY GOOD TEAM IN THE LEAGUE.

Sorry, I believe this whole lockout/CBA thing being nothing more than a way to screw the product that entertains the fans out of money because the owners can control their free spending ways. And if they can't make money they sell the franchise and recoup back all their loses and then some making big money.

I don't by the owners stance at all. The system works, you just have to manage yourself properly and too many teams don't. It really is that simple.

But if the players give back to the BRI an amount of about 5% and the system stays relatively the same but with shorter guaranteed contracts and a one time in five year amnesty to void a contract due to non-performance, I think that would be palatable for the players.

OK, so here is the question.  If the cap was at $70 million, and your favorite team spent only $59 million of that money, and perhaps passed on some players who would have made them significantly better teams, because they were not making enough revenue to spend up to the cap, would you still shell out $4000 per year for your season tickets?

This is the problem with the current system.  Yes, they make some dumb moves.  But those are really just the exception, and most of them are driven by the market. 

Teams are stuck trying to decide between spending extra money to try to keep the fans happy and fill the seats, or cutting salary to a point where they just can't compete, and where the fans will stop coming to the games.

Yes, owners and GMs need to have better self control, but for the good of the game, and maintaining a competitive balance, they need to move the numbers down to a point where it is sustainable for ALL markets.  If the small market teams are not able to spend to the cap level without at least breaking even, then things are just not going to work out for league.

I would buy this whole argument if Oklahoma City didn't just prove you completely wrong over the last 4 years. Also, in about 15-20 markets, it really doesn't matter how much you spend or how good your team is, you are still going to be playing to 93-95% of capacity, so I don't buy that. I mean, attendance figures pretty much disprove that theory.

Also, another reason to distrust the owners side. In five years the network television contracts are up and with ratings and basketball popularity on the rise, a major increase in television contract income is expected. With the owners pushing for a 10 year hard cap, who gets all the extra money from that influx of television money under that scenario?....That's right the owners.

[greenpride32]

But the main point is, sports is about athletes.  They should make the bulk of the money, period. The athletes are the heart of this whole thing.  Pay 'em and work from there. 

The fans watch the games for the athletes no question.  But the players don't own or operate the league; they are essentially an employee of it.  I don't care how great of a basketball player you are; if the NBA didn't exist then you would still be a great baller but could not turn your talent into fame and fortune.

Also keep in mind players are replaceable. I don't mean the NBA will get scab players like the NFL way back when.  What I mean is athletes have a relatively short career window; there is always an influx of new players. If the current generation of stars sits out it's not like that's the end of basketball; there will be future stars. 

[LooseCannon]

One idea I have is that there be two percentages.  The players get x% of TV-related BRI, both local and national, and y% if non-TV-related BRI.

I'm pretty sure the owners won't go for anything like that, since their current offers seem intended to lock the players out of a share of expected increases in TV income, but I would toss it out there as a possibility where there are different splits for different revenue streams.

[KGs Knee]

But the main point is, sports is about athletes.  They should make the bulk of the money, period. The athletes are the heart of this whole thing.  Pay 'em and work from there. 

The fans watch the games for the athletes no question.  But the players don't own or operate the league; they are essentially an employee of it.  I don't care how great of a basketball player you are; if the NBA didn't exist then you would still be a great baller but could not turn your talent into fame and fortune.

Also keep in mind players are replaceable. I don't mean the NBA will get scab players like the NFL way back when.  What I mean is athletes have a relatively short career window; there is always an influx of new players. If the current generation of stars sits out it's not like that's the end of basketball; there will be future stars. 

Yes, the players are the employees, but, they are also the product.

As far as who is more replaceable, it depends on how you look at it.  Individually, yes, the players are replaceable.  As a whole, meaning all players, no they are not replaceable.  Who is to say the new young talent would be willing to play under circumstances current players wouldn't.  Without the players, there is no league (at least a league anyone would be interested in watching).