Do you agree the players are the product?

[LooseCannon]

Now basketball without the most elite players in the world will sell, just look at NCAA basketball, the Olympic basketball tournament and the Euro leagues for proof of that.

I have little interest in watching any of those.

[byennie]

Here's the issue I have with the players' stance: they want a huge chunk of the revenue, but don't do any of the spending. When an NBA roster is paid $80M in a season, it's pure profit for the players. How many owners are turning $80M profit every year on their team? How many players contribute to the stadium lease, or marketing expenses? It's apple to oranges and while the players are important, they have a pretty sweet deal. They can spend their millions on themselves. Owners spend most of it on the team.

[nickagneta]

Here's the issue I have with the players' stance: they want a huge chunk of the revenue, but don't do any of the spending. When an NBA roster is paid $80M in a season, it's pure profit for the players. How many owners are turning $80M profit every year on their team? How many players contribute to the stadium lease, or marketing expenses? It's apple to oranges and while the players are important, they have a pretty sweet deal. They can spend their millions on themselves. Owners spend most of it on the team.

NBA owners have an average net personal worth of well over $500 million each with around 10 of them having personal worth of over a billion dollars. I'm not crying over how much money they aren't making as a basketball owner when I am 1000% sure that if they aren't eating up at least $2-5 million a year in perks and other assorted personal fiscal benefits(lear jets, limos, expense accounts, tax shelters, etc.) then they are taking at minimum a 7 figure yearly salary out of the team.

[Eja117]

Here's the issue I have with the players' stance: they want a huge chunk of the revenue, but don't do any of the spending. When an NBA roster is paid $80M in a season, it's pure profit for the players. How many owners are turning $80M profit every year on their team? How many players contribute to the stadium lease, or marketing expenses? It's apple to oranges and while the players are important, they have a pretty sweet deal. They can spend their millions on themselves. Owners spend most of it on the team.

NBA owners have an average net personal worth of well over $500 million each with around 10 of them having personal worth of over a billion dollars. I'm not crying over how much money they aren't making as a basketball owner when I am 1000% sure that if they aren't eating up at least $2-5 million a year in perks and other assorted personal fiscal benefits(lear jets, limos, expense accounts, tax shelters, etc.) then they are taking at minimum a 7 figure yearly salary out of the team.

And nick scores the straight up post of the day for telling it like it is, with a significant dose of common sense and evidence based reasoning.  Well done.

[TheReaLPuba]

I wish I could say it's basketball.

The real product isn't basketball.

It's entertainment.

If you want to watch basketball you can watch it in playgrounds.

You watch the NBA because your favorite players play or your favorite teams play or there a good story line that comes into play.

It's entertainment.

And players draw that entertainment.

You can't make an NBA without the talent.

If no great players were ever born with the skills and talents these guys have there would be no businessmen looking to assemble a team because zero money would be made.

Players bring in the money.

Everyone else just helps out.

[wdleehi]

Now basketball without the most elite players in the world will sell, just look at NCAA basketball, the Olympic basketball tournament and the Euro leagues for proof of that.

I have little interest in watching any of those.

But the NCAA does bring the ratings, 

[Greenbean]

I wish I could say it's basketball.

The real product isn't basketball.

It's entertainment.

If you want to watch basketball you can watch it in playgrounds.

You watch the NBA because your favorite players play or your favorite teams play or there a good story line that comes into play.

It's entertainment.

And players draw that entertainment.

You can't make an NBA without the talent.

If no great players were ever born with the skills and talents these guys have there would be no businessmen looking to assemble a team because zero money would be made.

Players bring in the money.

Everyone else just helps out.

The product should be a combination of a beautiful game being played by the most talented players in the world.

The focus has shifted too far to the individuals and the game has suffered.

Anyone that knows basketball can tell you that it is the ultimate team game.

Somehow, Stern has made it into an individual leage cut from the same cloth as baseball.

I think in general, the public thinks that football is more of a team sport than basketball and that just isnt true.

That is why there isnt much outrage when a talented player like Ty Warren is cut from the Patriots, or Syemour traded for a future first round pick. Fans realized that he just wasnt a good fit for the system BB was trying to install and they went along with it. The team/system can prevail over the talent.

Imagine if the Celtics just gave away talent like that?

What if we wanted to go to a Phoenix Suns style of uptempo shooting based offense and Rondo was just let go so we could get a shooting point guard in here?

Ainge would be out of a job.

Al Jefferson does not fit AT ALL on the Utah Jazz, but because he is a name and has talent, there is no way he would go anywhere else without significant returns.

I realize that the NBA has guaranteed deals but my point is, if you have talent in the NBA, you dont have to play a team style game to find success. In the NFL, if you dont fit in, youre gone.

Im rambling here but NBA GM's have been building all star teams built around guys who excel at 1 on 1 ball for years now and the game is getting watered down.

The Spurs might be the only exception and I cant think of another team that won as much as they did in a shorter period of time that gets less credit for being dominant. Has the league ever done less to get behind a team that successful?

[byennie]

NBA owners have an average net personal worth of well over $500 million each with around 10 of them having personal worth of over a billion dollars. I'm not crying over how much money they aren't making as a basketball owner when I am 1000% sure that if they aren't eating up at least $2-5 million a year in perks and other assorted personal fiscal benefits(lear jets, limos, expense accounts, tax shelters, etc.) then they are taking at minimum a 7 figure yearly salary out of the team.

I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, obviously owning an NBA team is an extreme luxury. But what does their outside wealth have to do with anything? They should just give all the money to the players because they are already rich? Even if the team is losing money? NBA player salaries are around 1.5 BILLION dollars per year ($50M x 30 teams), and they get to keep *all* of it. That's 10% of the total net worth of all of those owners combined, every year. Coaches add another $100M+. Players even get per diem on the road, when they are making $20M / year!

1000% sure, or you just assume? How many owners in the NBA would you say pay themselves multi-million dollar salaries that would just come out of the teams bottom line, so that they can pay 35% tax on it? What perks do they have that all of the players don't have? They certainly don't have personal jets on the company dime. The Mavericks fly on a private jet... bought and paid for personally by Mark Cuban!

I get the angst, especially as some of these owners really are scumbags (read: Donald Sterling), but it just feels to me like people want to side with the players because they are easier to like, and it's impossible to relate to billionaires claiming money trouble. But look at the numbers - the players have been making out like bandits. I'm all for things that affect better security for players - health benefits, rookie contracts, etc, because not everyone makes $20M/year. But the idea that the players as a group can't sacrifice any pay? Crazy IMO.

[Tai]

Like someone else suggested, it's possible this just turned into a semantics battle.

In the simplest form of what a "product" is, I don't see how the NBA players aren't that.

When someone buys a ticket for a NBA game, who are they paying to see? The players. Sure, you'll probably buy food at the concession stands like you do at the movies, and you need to pay people to give out that food. I mean sure, the popcorn at a NBA game is a product, too, but you have to pay extra for that. That's not what you bought your ticket for. You don't gotta pay extra to sit in your seat to watch the game once you have your ticket! And yes, the players (especially the top ones) are probably advertised on TV or are seen endorsing a product in the same way other entertainers (movie actors, music artists) are.

But, when you infact buy a NBA ticket, you are still paying to see WHO? The players! Maybe most of the product isn't has attractive than the rest (ex: Kevin Garnett vs Avery Bradley), but they are all part of the product, all the same.

I believe Chris and wdleehi have taken this argument to mean that the product is the only thing that matters, or that it matters more than anything else. Maybe others really believe that, but I don't think that's true AT ALL. What does every product need? A seller. Who are the sellers for the NBA? Well, the owners. Maybe you could simplify that to the spokesperson who does commercials to buy season tickets for a particular team, and then move on up to the sites who sell you tickets, or to the arenas that sell you tickets for a particular team. I do believe the people operating all of this stuff are pretty important people that every NBA team should have, for sure.

But still, who are you paying to see? The players. What makes them not the product? Does that make them more important than the seller (owner)? NO. But yes, they ARE the product.

Whether that means that the players shouldn't have to give up the money that the owners are asking for is another conversation. That still doesn't mean the players are NOT the product.

[byennie]

Like someone else suggested, it's possible this just turned into a semantics battle.
...

But still, who are you paying to see? The players. What makes them not the product? Does that make them more important than the seller (owner)? NO. But yes, they ARE the product.

Whether that means that the players shouldn't have to give up the money that the owners are asking for is another conversation. That still doesn't mean the players are NOT the product.

Well said. Also I think it's a false pretense to ask who is the victim here (owners vs players). The fans are the victim of this squabbling, but we don't have a seat at the negotiating table. In an ideal world, the fans would say "hard salary cap AND lower ticket prices", because after all, we are the ones funding the whole operation.

[Timdawgg]

I just don't see players as the product. The game of basketball is. The players are employees and are replaceable. Yes there would be a huge hit in revenues should they all be replaced but they are not the product. If the players want to decertify, the owners could void all contracts and let all current nba players take a hike.  Sure the owners would have to take a couple year loss but they could basically create their own structure with much lower pay system and I am sure any of the current highschoolers and college players would be happy making anything over $100,000 as would the majority of people in the US. I am not saying the players don't deserve what they get paid but If the owners really wanted to play hardball they could sit long enough for the players to cave....or eventually replace them all. As fans most of us would still follow our teams and alot of the teams would have new superstars in the next 3-5 years.

[Fan from VT]

I know if there is no professional basketball I will NOT replace it by watching WNBA, nor will I even replace it by watching more regular season College Hoops. So I guess I need a high level caliber of athlete to enjoy watching basketball closely on TV.

So i guess by that standard, I can't honestly claim "the game" is the product, or I'd find an easy replacement with the same game at an inferior level, which is what people who say the players are replaceable are arguing.

[Rondo_is_better]

I watch the NBA for Dan Gilbert and Mark Cuban.