If NBA lockout Armageddon occurs..some questions...Can players start own league?

[csfansince60s]

If the owners lockout the players, are the owners obligated to pay the players' salaries who are still under contract during the lockout?

If not, aren't all players technically or de facto unrestricted free agents, or are they still legally bound to their teams?

If not, can the players start their own league? 

The way it's going, at least  with all the saber rattling by the  owners, a lockout of substantial length and perhaps the whole year is a likelihood.

There are many owners with very deep pockets with very solvent franchises who could weather the storm. This long lockout benefits those owners in many ways.

1. The more extended the lockout, the more likely that financially weak franchises will fail. This contraction benefits the solvent owners who will divvy up the players from the failed franchises and the onerous revenue sharing to prop up weak franchises won't be necessary.

2. In addition, the leverage over the players will be huge, since the $60K allocated to each player by the union won't be enough to pay some players' car payments, therefore the more pressure that the lesser paid players will exert on the union to settle (give in).

Question: The player's union is one player, one vote, is that correct. If so, this will create a huge divide between the "haves" (big salaried players, esp those who have made their money) and the wannabes and have-nots. Since there are more have-nots (maybe haves-less is better)the union will most likely cave. Does that make sense? I'm really not sure.

If there is no CBA and the owners lock the players out and refuse to play them, why can't the players up the ante and threaten to form their own league?

Obviously, I am very ignorant of this matter, and would like some enlightenment.

[Lucky17]

I think part of the language for all NBA player contracts is a provision that they cannot play professional basketball for any other team during the duration of that contract.

The converse of this is the reason why there are often buyout issues with some international players who wish to play in the NBA.

[Fafnir]

They can't play in another league based on their contracts, not unless they're willing to let the NBA potentially void their deals or worse.

Plus there are FIBA issues if they go to any other established leagues.

[saltlover]

If the owners lock the players out, yes, they can start their own league.  They would no longer be bound under any provisions that prevent them from playing basketball elsewhere, unless the NBA wants to get crushed with some very heavy anti-trust action.

Will they start their own league?  No chance.  The capital requirements would be extreme, and as a whole they would make much less money than the NBA, because there is no way they would get the media revenue the NBA does.  CBS or FOX isn't going to fork over a ton of cash for a 5-year TV deal to a league that probably won't last more than a half season.  It's not even a viable threat.

I think the NBA will come to an agreement about three weeks after the NFL does.  Both sides will use that agreement to stake out ground, and/or use the consequences as leverage.

[paulcowens]

This is EXACTLY what the players should do.  It would have to be modeled on the street ball series.  Rather than set up the whole panoply of a league, to start with, they should set up a traveling tournament series, with four to six teams.  They might not make much money, at the start, but the players need to understand that that is not the point.  The point is to challenge the owners' belief that the players do not have any alternative to the NBA.  The longer the lockout goes on, the more the players can develop and elaborate their alternative scenario.

Also, the rich players need to help the other players.  It's that simple.  If they have any understanding at all about collective bargaining, they will be happy to do it.  If not, then they will not succeed in standing up to the owners.  Athletes often seem to be extreme individualists, not very saavy about doing things collectively, but they might be able to think of the union as their 'team'.

[hwangjini_1]

This is EXACTLY what the players should do.  It would have to be modeled on the street ball series.  Rather than set up the whole panoply of a league, to start with, they should set up a traveling tournament series, with four to six teams.  They might not make much money, at the start, but the players need to understand that that is not the point.  The point is to challenge the owners' belief that the players do not have any alternative to the NBA.  The longer the lockout goes on, the more the players can develop and elaborate their alternative scenario.

Also, the rich players need to help the other players.  It's that simple.  If they have any understanding at all about collective bargaining, they will be happy to do it.  If not, then they will not succeed in standing up to the owners.  Athletes often seem to be extreme individualists, not very saavy about doing things collectively, but they might be able to think of the union as their 'team'.

perhaps, but you might also wish to include the previous poster's points in your argument. TV rights truly do generate enormous revenue and i do not see how any TV station would fork over large contracts for either (1) a league that is designed and destined to be short lived, or, (2) a street-ball league where we see the same 4 to 6 teams play street ball against one another again and again and again.

a player's league does not seem to be in the cards without TV revenue.

i guess the players may have to limp home making only 2/3 of their current contracts. life is indeed cruel sometimes.

[BASS_THUMPER]

ok..

everyone put in 5 dollas...thats to pay the refs and rent the rec down from my crib..


we cut out the middle and we get paid!!...

[KGs Knee]

I'd be all for this if it were possible.

Screw the owners, they are by far the more greedy and deceitful.  Not to mention who pays to see a guy in a suit.  Not I.

[csfansince60s]

They can't play in another league based on their contracts, not unless they're willing to let the NBA potentially void their deals or worse.

Plus there are FIBA issues if they go to any other established leagues.

Why can't they go to play in other leagues if the owners are not living up to their end of the contract by not paying them.

What would happen if LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Rose, KG, Ray, Pierce, Melo, Stat, Durant, D12, Chris Paul, etc, etc decided to play in another league for a year?

Would the teams they left, who weren't paying them, void the players' deals and in effect give up their rights to them and risk losing them for nothing? I doubt that very much.

And the vets at the end of their career like KG, Nash, Duncan, perhaps Ray and others would have nothing to lose. They are all vested pension-wise and would at least get to play one more year, albeit not where they want to be.

I think the players, especially the superstars, should say F*&&% the owners and take their talents elsewhere for a year. let's see how the owners react to that.

[greensquirrel]

If I were an NBA star, I'd sign to a european team for peanuts, just to p--- off the owners.

[GreenEnvy]

It'll be very unfortunate if the NBA locks-out for the second time in just 13 seasons.

I mean, strikes should never happen, but they do. Baseball got theirs in 1994 and the game has took off since. The only teams in real trouble are the Mets and Dodgers, strictly because of their incompetent owners. The Yankees knowingly offer contracts knowing they will pay revenue sharing to the small-market stingy teams.

The NHL went through theirs a few seasons ago and it set the game back. Unfortunately, it didn't have far to fall. But they are on the comeback, and Americans are eventually going to have a bigger presence. That will correlate to a much bigger American audience and therefore more dollars for the league.

The NFL's current lockout is almost laughable. There will basically undoubtedly be no games missed. I doubt any teams even lose money as it is, and certainly won't after. The NFL (for reasons unbeknownst to me) is a juggernaut league and won't stop anytime soon. This "strike" means little in the grand scheme of things.

Then there is basketball. Depending who you ask, a good number of teams are losing money. Talks of contraction almost annually. Basically, the last strike did what? Jordan left, and so did the fans. Big market teams like the Fakers won titles and a return for His Airness helped, but once that dissipated, the league starts to falter again. Small markets lose stars (see Cleveland, Toronto, and eventually New Orleans, Orlando). They then have to overpay role players (see Milwaukee, Golden State).


I think changes need to be made. I think what the owners are asking for is excessive, but the players are going to have to concede a portion of what they have been receiving.


It sucks, and if they indeed miss an entire season, I will greatly miss basketball. If they miss a single game I will be upset, but a whole season will be disastrous. This may be the Celtics last stand with the Big Three.

I just hope we get a Playoffs next season. 50 games, 66, 82, whatever. Just play.

Seasons can be shortened. All-Star games can be cancelled. But champions need to be crowned.

[greenpride32]

None of these players is going to risk an injury for peanuts when they have $20-$90m left on their existing NBA contracts; of course these numbers might be reduced some after the new CBA.  The contracts of course would be voided if they were injured outside the NBA.  Guys like Rose and Durant haven't even cracked $20m in career salary yet.

I'm surprised at how many people are siding with the players.  It's pretty clear teams are losing money and there is no competitive balance; and something has to change to fix that.  Both sides are greedy, the players and the owners.  I just feel in this particular case the owners have a much stronger argument.  The players are just saying teams are losing less than they claim, but that still means they are losing money.

[GreenEnvy]

None of these players is going to risk an injury for peanuts when they have $20-$90m left on their existing NBA contracts; of course these numbers might be reduced some after the new CBA.  The contracts of course would be voided if they were injured outside the NBA.  Guys like Rose and Durant haven't even cracked $20m in career salary yet.

I'm surprised at how many people are siding with the players.  It's pretty clear teams are losing money and there is no competitive balance; and something has to change to fix that.  Both sides are greedy, the players and the owners.  I just feel in this particular case the owners have a much stronger argument.  The players are just saying teams are losing less than they claim, but that still means they are losing money.

No competitive balance? I disagree.

Big markets like Boston and NY have had terrible teams recently. The Clippers play in a big market (despite being second fiddle), yet haven't won a playoff series since when? Small markets like San Antonio have produced champions, as have Detroit and Miami.

Parity is much better in the NBA than baseball or football IMO. But I think this current system is allowing this net problem to happen, where GM's from smaller markets are trading their stars to big markets before they leave. They get marginal prospects and established role players instead of nothing, then are forced to overpay to keep them to remain relevant.

Then, the draft has an awful lottery system that rarely, if ever, truly helps the worst teams. Instead of the absolute worst teams getting the franchise-changing players, random teams luck into the top picks and set those horrible teams back even further.

I honestly don't know exactly what changes need to be made in regards to salaries, the cap, guaranteed contracts, etc. But something needs to be done. I hope the owners ask for what is needed and not what is wanted. The players than need to accept that perhaps they had it a tad too good the past decade or so.

[greensquirrel]

None of these players is going to risk an injury for peanuts when they have $20-$90m left on their existing NBA contracts; of course these numbers might be reduced some after the new CBA.  The contracts of course would be voided if they were injured outside the NBA.  Guys like Rose and Durant haven't even cracked $20m in career salary yet.

I'm surprised at how many people are siding with the players.  It's pretty clear teams are losing money and there is no competitive balance; and something has to change to fix that.  Both sides are greedy, the players and the owners.  I just feel in this particular case the owners have a much stronger argument.  The players are just saying teams are losing less than they claim, but that still means they are losing money.

It looks like Deron Williams just did it.