Do you agree the players are the product?

[greenpride32]

Here is a quote from Kevin Love at a NBAPA meeting last night:

Love said the main issue was the hard cap of $45 million.

"It would be a crazy system and at the end of the day we're the product and the moneymaker and I don't see (the owners) going out there and playing," Love said. "We've got to stick together as one."

Do you agree the players are the actual product, or is it the game of basketball?  To me I see a very small percentage of the players actualy selling the game.  People came out to see Jordan.  While other stars since then definitely have a following they have nowhere near the impact.  When the Celtics were bad, they would sell out vs the Lakers, but not to any other teams or big stars coming in; with Jordan every team in the league sold out if the team was doing good or bad.

The players fail to realize they can only be successful if the league promotes them.  So you have a bunch of greatly skilled basketball players doing local pickup games; that does not generate any income.  Sure you'll have locals coming out to watch but there's no TV contracts, no merchandise deals, no licensing revenues etc. So Kevin Love you can go out and play the game and still not get paid for it which proves that is not the most vital part of the equation.   

This is all about player egos.  And the very large majority of them know nothing about business.  The overall product is really both sides. 

[Fafnir]

The players are the product, the owners provide the national stage for it.

The owners can't make any money bringing in replacement players either, just as the players can't make any money staging their own barnstorming tour. Instead they'll have to go abroad to other leagues for a small fraction of them to make money.

I don't think the players fail to realize that they're in a partnership with the owners, they're just fighting over the terms of the partnership/employment/the bargain.

This isn't about egos, its about money.

[Kane3387]

Honestly the superstars are the product. That is how the NBA markets their league..

[Chris]

I think claiming the players are the product is a pretty big insult to the other people who are involved in putting the show together.  From the coaches, to the basketball operations guys who bring the teams together, to the operations people who make the games happen, and the game presentation people.

The players are certainly the most important piece of the puzzle, but without those other pieces, we would be watching (actually, no, we wouldn't be watching) a glorified pickup game.

Players need to realize that they are crucial to the product, but without the organization, investors, etc., there also would be no product.

And I think if the players are going to continue to get 50% of revenues (or even 45%), that is more than fair, as they are that important to the product.  But this is also a business, and they are not the only ones who deserve to make money off it.

[wdleehi]

The NBA is also their showcase.


The same players who draw the fans to the NBA get more money because of the NBA in advertising. 


The money the NBA pays for everything else that goes into these games being played and marketed adds value to what these players can make off the court. 



Everyone involved should get a fair share and have a chance to make money. 

[Casperian]

I don´t agree, they´re not the product.
The league is the cake, the players are just sugar and milk.

I don´t know about other NBA fans, there are certainly a lot of new Heat fans around, but I´m more a fan of the Celtics than any specific player. If Ray Allen, my favourite player, would go to Turkey, I`d follow him loosely, out of curiosity. If the Celtics decide to play in the turkish league, I´d still be here every day (and pretty confused and angry).

In my opinion, a league is more than just the players or just the franchises, it is an independent brand, with it´s own history and specific dynamics, and that´s what I´m buying.

[Chris]

Or I guess to clarify the metaphor, lets say the product was a computer.  The players would be the processor.  It is arguably the most important part of the product, but it is useless unless you also have the memory and ramm, etc.

[fairweatherfan]

I suppose it depends on how you define "product".

But I know this: It'd be a heck of a lot easier to create a league with players and no (separate) owners than one with owners and no players.

[Chris]

I suppose it depends on how you define "product".

But I know this: It'd be a heck of a lot easier to create a league with players and no (separate) owners than one with owners and no players.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  I think it would be much easier for the league to find replacement players and be successful than it would be for the players to start a new league on their own.

[fairweatherfan]

I suppose it depends on how you define "product".

But I know this: It'd be a heck of a lot easier to create a league with players and no (separate) owners than one with owners and no players.

I don't think this is necessarily true.  I think it would be much easier for the league to find replacement players and be successful than it would be for the players to start a new league on their own.

I mean players and owners in general, not necessarily the players and owners we have right now.  Players are more important than owners, although they're obviously all better off together.

[Casperian]

Or I guess to clarify the metaphor, lets say the product was a computer.  The players would be the processor.  It is arguably the most important part of the product, but it is useless unless you also have the memory and ramm, etc.

Yeah, that´s a better metaphor.

I suppose it depends on how you define "product".

But I know this: It'd be a heck of a lot easier to create a league with players and no (separate) owners than one with owners and no players.

So, what´s your new team? The Pierce Rockets, or the Garnett Squirrels?  (Edit: removed smiley, it´s not that funny)

[mgent]

Obviously.  What else would be the product?  They're not making all the money, but they're making most of it.  I agree with Love, it's stupid to fix the problem by taking money away from the players when it's the owners that are mismanaging it.

The REAL problem is the spending on everything outside of contracts.  Take away all the extras, give the players their money, and then let them pay for it if they want.  Cutting the ridiculous spending is a much more fair solution, but we all know this isn't an even situation.  The owners have the power, and they're going to abuse it to get more money.

I don't think the players will find a way around that.  They can keep talking to the media, and they'll keep being right, but that's not going to stop it.  They need to put their energy into figuring out a compromise,  things aren't going to suddenly sway in their favor any time soon.

[Finkelskyhook]

The uniform is the product to me. Then whoever is in those uniforms.  I watch 75 C's games a year.  I didn't watch a minute of the various meaningless pick up games with some of our players in them throughout their careers...pan-am games, olympics, all-star or otherwise.  

But the NBA is a sum of it's parts.  Owners and players are equally relevent.  Players are not savvy enough...And don't have the resources to facilitate what the owners can provide...And vice-versa.

[fairweatherfan]

The REAL problem is the spending on everything outside of contracts.

I doubt it's any kind of major expense, but I'd love to see how much NBA teams pay annually to have Jock Jam snippets constantly playing every game.

[Donoghus]

The product is the game of basketball.