Greedy Billionaires?

[Chris]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

[Gainesville Celtic]

Just my 2 cents.....

If i was leading the players union i'd be pushing for 2 things:

1. a higher percentage of the BRI
2. a lowering of ticket prices across the board (along the lines of what BDM860 suggest above)

(Actually if I were the players I'd probably push to start my own league, but then again I'm nuts).

I have NO sympathy for the owners. I don't believe for a minute that they are losing money. They aren't making as much PROFIT as they want, that's a very different thing.

Players salaries are NOT the main thing driving ticket prices up. It's owners wanting more profits, more return on their investment. Baseball salaries are lower than basketball but are Baseball tickets any cheaper across the board? no.

Everyone knows that the owners make their money (hundreds of millions) when the sell their teams --- money that players never see and, in fact, are being asked to subsidized (via the owners' insistence that debt payments for buying the teams be factored into BRI).

If the NBA economic system is so horrible why haven't the Maloofs, for example, just sold their team? Why does the Atlanta sale nearly double the price the group paid for it.

And, yeah Avery Bradley makes more in his rookie deal (~ $4M) than I will in my lifetime. Probably about as much as me, my wife and our kid will.

But you know what... take that $4M, multiply it by 35 and that's what Steve Pagliuca paid just for his share of the Celtics. $140M is not just more than I'll make in my lifetime, but my entire extended family, my kids' kids, my wife, her entire extended family. And probably everyone who lives on my block.

And that's just what he paid for the Celtics. Boston Magazine put his worth at $410 Million --- or 100 times what Avery Bradley will make in his rookie contract. So one *co-owner* is worth more than 100 bad rookie contracts. One.

IMO, the owners are the same people, the same class of people, that put our economy in the tank and then wanted a bailout of billions.

While they might make way more than me, 90-95% of the players are not in that *class* because except for guys like Kobe or Steph Curry, their parents were like all of us --- worked for a living and/or scraped by on some work and public assistance.


/rant

[action781]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

I have a hard time believing this to be true.  The owners have all along maintained the reason for the lockout is because of negative profits.  They aren't getting the BRI split they want (which has the CLEAR biggest impact in profits).  The deadline for missed games looms... they know they aren't going to agree on a BRI split... they know cancelling games over $ will make both sides appear selfish and greedy... so the sides now create this diversion that the disagreement is now over salary cap "structure".

I could be totally off here, but that's my feeling.  These new "issues" that have come up in the last 2 days are a total guise to make both sides not look greedy.

[blackbird]

Just my 2 cents.....

If i was leading the players union i'd be pushing for 2 things:

1. a higher percentage of the BRI
2. a lowering of ticket prices across the board (along the lines of what BDM860 suggest above)

(Actually if I were the players I'd probably push to start my own league, but then again I'm nuts).

I have NO sympathy for the owners. I don't believe for a minute that they are losing money. They aren't making as much PROFIT as they want, that's a very different thing.

Players salaries are NOT the main thing driving ticket prices up. It's owners wanting more profits, more return on their investment. Baseball salaries are lower than basketball but are Baseball tickets any cheaper across the board? no.

Everyone knows that the owners make their money (hundreds of millions) when the sell their teams --- money that players never see and, in fact, are being asked to subsidized (via the owners' insistence that debt payments for buying the teams be factored into BRI).

If the NBA economic system is so horrible why haven't the Maloofs, for example, just sold their team? Why does the Atlanta sale nearly double the price the group paid for it.

And, yeah Avery Bradley makes more in his rookie deal (~ $4M) than I will in my lifetime. Probably about as much as me, my wife and our kid will.

But you know what... take that $4M, multiply it by 35 and that's what Steve Pagliuca paid just for his share of the Celtics. $140M is not just more than I'll make in my lifetime, but my entire extended family, my kids' kids, my wife, her entire extended family. And probably everyone who lives on my block.

And that's just what he paid for the Celtics. Boston Magazine put his worth at $410 Million --- or 100 times what Avery Bradley will make in his rookie contract. So one *co-owner* is worth more than 100 bad rookie contracts. One.

IMO, the owners are the same people, the same class of people, that put our economy in the tank and then wanted a bailout of billions.

While they might make way more than me, 90-95% of the players are not in that *class* because except for guys like Kobe or Steph Curry, their parents were like all of us --- worked for a living and/or scraped by on some work and public assistance.


/rant

This was fantastic. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[Chris]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

I have a hard time believing this to be true.  The owners have all along maintained the reason for the lockout is because of negative profits.  They aren't getting the BRI split they want (which has the CLEAR biggest impact in profits).  The deadline for missed games looms... they know they aren't going to agree on a BRI split... they know cancelling games over $ will make both sides appear selfish and greedy... so the sides now create this diversion that the disagreement is now over salary cap "structure".

I could be totally off here, but that's my feeling.  These new "issues" that have come up in the last 2 days are a total guise to make both sides not look greedy.

Hmmm, that's definitely a possibility.

And ultimately, its probably somewhere in the middle.  It probably comes down to the combination.  The owners might be willing to compromise on the harder cap, if they are getting 53 or 54% of the revenue, so they will have more revenue to share, making it easier for the smaller market teams to go further over the cap.  However, if they are going to be getting 50% or less of the BRI, then I think they are going to hold strong to the harder cap demand.

[action781]

BTW, as a season ticket holder, we got an email a while back with this in it:

The NBA’s efforts remain focused on reaching a new collective bargaining agreement that is in the best interests of its teams, the players, our fans, and the game of basketball.

Was anybody else completely and utterly disgusted that they would try to sell this to us?  If they really cared about the best interests of the fans, they'd have made the season happen.  Bottom line.  The "best interests of the fans" can only be so incredibly marginally affected by whatever CBA details they hammer out.  The loss of games is the real effect.  I know it was just a statement for good PR, but that inclusion really annoyed me.

No more disgusted than I have been with the players tweets "Apologizing", and acting like they have had nothing to do with this.  I especially liked Wade's tweets last night, saying it was Sterns "words" that have been hurting people.  

I would argue however, that the owners have had more of the fans interest than the players have.  While the owners have certainly been trying to maximize their own profits, which will do little for the fans (could give them slightly more money to put into the non-basketball game presentation, but minimal), the hard cap would absolutely benefit teams in smaller markets (which is well more than half the NBA).  

The owners are trying to create a league where every team can contend in just a couple of years, by allowing quick turnaround, and an even playing field financially.  That would benefit the fans I think.

But I do agree at this point, it is more than a little disingenuous to frame it like that in that email.  

I agree with you.  Disingenuous of the owners to say that in the email, for sure, and I also agree that the players tweets are disingenuous also.

But I see one distinction.  I think the owners write that while knowing absolutely that their interest is not really in the fans by not agreeing to end the lockout.  On the other hand, I think the players have been convinced by a lot of smooth talking people smarter than they are like their agents and union leaders that they are truly giving up things left and right and being victimized by the owners here.  I'm not saying that's happening, but I bet that at least some players might truly feel this way and feel that they are not the cause of this.  But again, the owners, on the other hand, know better.

[action781]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

I have a hard time believing this to be true.  The owners have all along maintained the reason for the lockout is because of negative profits.  They aren't getting the BRI split they want (which has the CLEAR biggest impact in profits).  The deadline for missed games looms... they know they aren't going to agree on a BRI split... they know cancelling games over $ will make both sides appear selfish and greedy... so the sides now create this diversion that the disagreement is now over salary cap "structure".

I could be totally off here, but that's my feeling.  These new "issues" that have come up in the last 2 days are a total guise to make both sides not look greedy.

Hmmm, that's definitely a possibility.

And ultimately, its probably somewhere in the middle.  It probably comes down to the combination.  The owners might be willing to compromise on the harder cap, if they are getting 53 or 54% of the revenue, so they will have more revenue to share, making it easier for the smaller market teams to go further over the cap.  However, if they are going to be getting 50% or less of the BRI, then I think they are going to hold strong to the harder cap demand.

What you say is the what any logical, reasonable person should assume.  It certainly is what sounds most fair.  But in light of every single report saying that the owners won't budge off of 50% and the players won't budge off of 53%, I'm just not sure if it is the case.  If it were, I feel like we would have heard at least 1 single report that one side was willing to come off of that % for other concessions, but we haven't.

[Chris]

BTW, as a season ticket holder, we got an email a while back with this in it:

The NBA’s efforts remain focused on reaching a new collective bargaining agreement that is in the best interests of its teams, the players, our fans, and the game of basketball.

Was anybody else completely and utterly disgusted that they would try to sell this to us?  If they really cared about the best interests of the fans, they'd have made the season happen.  Bottom line.  The "best interests of the fans" can only be so incredibly marginally affected by whatever CBA details they hammer out.  The loss of games is the real effect.  I know it was just a statement for good PR, but that inclusion really annoyed me.

No more disgusted than I have been with the players tweets "Apologizing", and acting like they have had nothing to do with this.  I especially liked Wade's tweets last night, saying it was Sterns "words" that have been hurting people.  

I would argue however, that the owners have had more of the fans interest than the players have.  While the owners have certainly been trying to maximize their own profits, which will do little for the fans (could give them slightly more money to put into the non-basketball game presentation, but minimal), the hard cap would absolutely benefit teams in smaller markets (which is well more than half the NBA).  

The owners are trying to create a league where every team can contend in just a couple of years, by allowing quick turnaround, and an even playing field financially.  That would benefit the fans I think.

But I do agree at this point, it is more than a little disingenuous to frame it like that in that email.  

I agree with you.  Disingenuous of the owners to say that in the email, for sure, and I also agree that the players tweets are disingenuous also.

But I see one distinction.  I think the owners write that while knowing absolutely that their interest is not really in the fans by not agreeing to end the lockout.  On the other hand, I think the players have been convinced by a lot of smooth talking people smarter than they are like their agents and union leaders that they are truly giving up things left and right and being victimized by the owners here.  I'm not saying that's happening, but I bet that at least some players might truly feel this way and feel that they are not the cause of this.  But again, the owners, on the other hand, know better.

I agree.  

I do think the owners don't have much of a choice with that statement though.  They are in a no-win situation with their fans (that obviously, they are responsible for), and no matter what they say, it is not going to go over well.

[Chris]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

I have a hard time believing this to be true.  The owners have all along maintained the reason for the lockout is because of negative profits.  They aren't getting the BRI split they want (which has the CLEAR biggest impact in profits).  The deadline for missed games looms... they know they aren't going to agree on a BRI split... they know cancelling games over $ will make both sides appear selfish and greedy... so the sides now create this diversion that the disagreement is now over salary cap "structure".

I could be totally off here, but that's my feeling.  These new "issues" that have come up in the last 2 days are a total guise to make both sides not look greedy.

Hmmm, that's definitely a possibility.

And ultimately, its probably somewhere in the middle.  It probably comes down to the combination.  The owners might be willing to compromise on the harder cap, if they are getting 53 or 54% of the revenue, so they will have more revenue to share, making it easier for the smaller market teams to go further over the cap.  However, if they are going to be getting 50% or less of the BRI, then I think they are going to hold strong to the harder cap demand.

What you say is the what any logical, reasonable person should assume.  It certainly is what sounds most fair.  But in light of every single report saying that the owners won't budge off of 50% and the players won't budge off of 53%, I'm just not sure if it is the case.  If it were, I feel like we would have heard at least 1 single report that one side was willing to come off of that % for other concessions, but we haven't.

Actually word is the owners have budged off 50%...they are back down to 47%.

But, multiple people did say yesterday that, had they agreed on the system, they could have bridged that gap on the BRI.  And call me a sucker, but I believe that.  I just don't think either side is ready to truly compromise on the system.

[action781]

Both are greedy and it's a battle of egos now rather than for $.  Larry Coon's article laid it out really nicely.  If either side would just cave into the current proposal of the other side, they would end up losing less money than they are about to lose from missed games.

It's become a matter of principle and egos now.

That is what I thought too.  However, what we learned yesterday was that the split of BRI was not the issue here.  It is the system.  And they are not close on that.

I think a lot of writers (and myself) made the mistake of assuming that it was all about the bottom line...in which case, it would have been resolved.  However, the system issues are going to be much harder to resolve, unless one side is bluffing here (which I don't think they are).

I have a hard time believing this to be true.  The owners have all along maintained the reason for the lockout is because of negative profits.  They aren't getting the BRI split they want (which has the CLEAR biggest impact in profits).  The deadline for missed games looms... they know they aren't going to agree on a BRI split... they know cancelling games over $ will make both sides appear selfish and greedy... so the sides now create this diversion that the disagreement is now over salary cap "structure".

I could be totally off here, but that's my feeling.  These new "issues" that have come up in the last 2 days are a total guise to make both sides not look greedy.

Hmmm, that's definitely a possibility.

And ultimately, its probably somewhere in the middle.  It probably comes down to the combination.  The owners might be willing to compromise on the harder cap, if they are getting 53 or 54% of the revenue, so they will have more revenue to share, making it easier for the smaller market teams to go further over the cap.  However, if they are going to be getting 50% or less of the BRI, then I think they are going to hold strong to the harder cap demand.

What you say is the what any logical, reasonable person should assume.  It certainly is what sounds most fair.  But in light of every single report saying that the owners won't budge off of 50% and the players won't budge off of 53%, I'm just not sure if it is the case.  If it were, I feel like we would have heard at least 1 single report that one side was willing to come off of that % for other concessions, but we haven't.

Actually word is the owners have budged off 50%...they are back down to 47%.

But, multiple people did say yesterday that, had they agreed on the system, they could have bridged that gap on the BRI.  And call me a sucker, but I believe that.  I just don't think either side is ready to truly compromise on the system.

Yeah, maybe you're right.  Personally, I wouldn't go as far to say they are definitely lying on the "bridging the BRI gap", but I'm also not sure I believe it.  I don't know why the BRI has been the major issue for months and months when instead they could have been working to a solution over the system if that is the "real" issue.  That's a lot of wasted time that could have been used to working towards a solution for the "real" issue instead of losing regular season games.  IMO, the leaders of both sides should be fired for not realizing these "real issues" earlier if true in order to potentially save the season.

And I know that "system" issues have been discussed at meetings in the past (in case that comes off above as they have been ignored), but again, if this was the "real" issue, then why were statements ever made last week like "We have no need to meet if you aren't willing to come down to a 50-50 BRI split".  Sounds like potentially hammering out the "real" issue would have been a GREAT reason to meet.

[Chris]

Yeah, maybe you're right.  Personally, I wouldn't go as far to say they are definitely lying on the "bridging the BRI gap", but I'm also not sure I believe it.  I don't know why the BRI has been the major issue for months and months when instead they could have been working to a solution over the system if that is the "real" issue.  That's a lot of wasted time that could have been used to working towards a solution for the "real" issue instead of losing regular season games.  IMO, the leaders of both sides should be fired for not realizing these "real issues" earlier if true in order to potentially save the season.

And I know that "system" issues have been discussed at meetings in the past (in case that comes off above as they have been ignored), but again, if this was the "real" issue, then why were statements ever made last week like "We have no need to meet if you aren't willing to come down to a 50-50 BRI split".  Sounds like potentially hammering out the "real" issue would have been a GREAT reason to meet.

Well, to be fair, we have no idea what is really going on behind closed doors.  All we know is what both sides want us to know. 

And the thing is, if they couldn't agree on the "real" issues at the 11th hour, then they would have just been spinning their wheels a month ago, because no one would have budged at that point.

The deal wasn't missed just because they ran out of time, it was because neither side was ready to give in enough.  They could have been meeting every day for the last 6 months, and that probably wouldn't have changed. 

There was hope that the thought of missed games and the lost revenue would be enough to push one side over the edge, but clearly it wasn't.  They need more motivation, and that only comes in time. 

[action781]

Yeah, maybe you're right.  Personally, I wouldn't go as far to say they are definitely lying on the "bridging the BRI gap", but I'm also not sure I believe it.  I don't know why the BRI has been the major issue for months and months when instead they could have been working to a solution over the system if that is the "real" issue.  That's a lot of wasted time that could have been used to working towards a solution for the "real" issue instead of losing regular season games.  IMO, the leaders of both sides should be fired for not realizing these "real issues" earlier if true in order to potentially save the season.

And I know that "system" issues have been discussed at meetings in the past (in case that comes off above as they have been ignored), but again, if this was the "real" issue, then why were statements ever made last week like "We have no need to meet if you aren't willing to come down to a 50-50 BRI split".  Sounds like potentially hammering out the "real" issue would have been a GREAT reason to meet.

Well, to be fair, we have no idea what is really going on behind closed doors.  All we know is what both sides want us to know. 

And the thing is, if they couldn't agree on the "real" issues at the 11th hour, then they would have just been spinning their wheels a month ago, because no one would have budged at that point.

The deal wasn't missed just because they ran out of time, it was because neither side was ready to give in enough.  They could have been meeting every day for the last 6 months, and that probably wouldn't have changed. 

There was hope that the thought of missed games and the lost revenue would be enough to push one side over the edge, but clearly it wasn't.  They need more motivation, and that only comes in time. 

Very true

[chicagoceltic]

It has been my opinion that this is a great big game of chicken between the owners and the players.  The current system is way out of whack and the two sides are so far apart that this will only be settled when one side blinks.  I do not believe that either side has really put an effort towards finding a middle ground acceptable to all.

The owners have created a mess by years and years of mismanagement of players salaries.  They have handed out ridiculous guananteed contracts for years and now they want a new system to protect themselves from themselves.  They are asking for sweeping changes.

The players have benefitted from the owners mistakes for years and feel entitled to what they have.  The system is fine as far as they are concerned...why would they want a change?


Both sides seem to be pretty dug in...I do not expect a resolution anytime soon...

[Coach]

Just my 2 cents.....

If i was leading the players union i'd be pushing for 2 things:

1. a higher percentage of the BRI
2. a lowering of ticket prices across the board (along the lines of what BDM860 suggest above)

(Actually if I were the players I'd probably push to start my own league, but then again I'm nuts).

I have NO sympathy for the owners. I don't believe for a minute that they are losing money. They aren't making as much PROFIT as they want, that's a very different thing.

Players salaries are NOT the main thing driving ticket prices up. It's owners wanting more profits, more return on their investment. Baseball salaries are lower than basketball but are Baseball tickets any cheaper across the board? no.

Everyone knows that the owners make their money (hundreds of millions) when the sell their teams --- money that players never see and, in fact, are being asked to subsidized (via the owners' insistence that debt payments for buying the teams be factored into BRI).

If the NBA economic system is so horrible why haven't the Maloofs, for example, just sold their team? Why does the Atlanta sale nearly double the price the group paid for it.

And, yeah Avery Bradley makes more in his rookie deal (~ $4M) than I will in my lifetime. Probably about as much as me, my wife and our kid will.

But you know what... take that $4M, multiply it by 35 and that's what Steve Pagliuca paid just for his share of the Celtics. $140M is not just more than I'll make in my lifetime, but my entire extended family, my kids' kids, my wife, her entire extended family. And probably everyone who lives on my block.

And that's just what he paid for the Celtics. Boston Magazine put his worth at $410 Million --- or 100 times what Avery Bradley will make in his rookie contract. So one *co-owner* is worth more than 100 bad rookie contracts. One.

IMO, the owners are the same people, the same class of people, that put our economy in the tank and then wanted a bailout of billions.

While they might make way more than me, 90-95% of the players are not in that *class* because except for guys like Kobe or Steph Curry, their parents were like all of us --- worked for a living and/or scraped by on some work and public assistance.


/rant

Wow.  I have a lot of issues with this post, which I enjoy!  Thanks for responding.  However:


1)   Owners worth has nothing to do with this argument.  Are you saying, that because they have made huge money in other businesses / industries, that they should subsides the NBA?  That losing money running the NBA is their social debt to society for being rich?  That makes no sense.  The reasons they bought their teams all vary.  Some for ego, some for an investment on the flip (a buy and sell situation), some to make more money on operations.  It is their right to do this.  They have zero moral obligations to finance our basketball watching pleasure, or to make NBA players rich, while they lose money.
2)   Owners debt and debt payments are NOT calculated in the BRI.  BRI = Basketball Related Income.  This is the revenues that the league produces.  Now the argument from the players is about the interest charged on this debt, which is a legitimate question (and one area where I question the owner’s truthfulness).  This goes to the teams’ profitability, and as such, the owners claim that they are making or losing money.  A little accounting lesson:  Net Income = Revenues – Expenses.  So when the owners claim they are losing money, they are saying that their expenses are more than their revenues.  Debt repayments are not in this calculation.  However, Interest on the debt is.  But what happens when the owners or their related companies lend money to the team for operations?  They charge the NBA team interest on that money.  This interest is then netted against the revenue, and thus driving down net income.  Are the owners charging the teams a fair interest rate?  You can see how they can use this to play with the net income numbers.
3)   Owner’s greed is not driving up ticket prices.  Remember, the owners losing money on these teams.  One of the ways to recoup this loss, or to try and turn a profit, is to raise ticket prices.  What makes up the main expense item?  Player’s salaries.  The salaries, as noted, make up 57% of the revenues.  The other 43% are the costs associated with running the team.  Ie: GM’s and coaches salaries, scouting departments, marketing departments, stadium costs, etc.
4)   Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand.  Saying that they should lower ticket prices is a fallacy.  Who would it benefit?  A few diehard fans would.  But the rest of the ticket purchasers would sense a business opportunity themselves, and would list those tickets on Stub Hub, and try their luck.  The economic theory of supply and demand dictates that it is the consumers who determine the ticket prices.  Sure the teams could lower the prices, but the difference between what they charge, and what they end up costing, is money that is going to another business (or enterprising individual) instead of the team.  This money could have been used to upgrade your game experience, or to bring in that one extra player, who puts the team over the top.  James Posey, anyone?

[Chris]

Just my 2 cents.....

If i was leading the players union i'd be pushing for 2 things:

1. a higher percentage of the BRI
2. a lowering of ticket prices across the board (along the lines of what BDM860 suggest above)

(Actually if I were the players I'd probably push to start my own league, but then again I'm nuts).

I have NO sympathy for the owners. I don't believe for a minute that they are losing money. They aren't making as much PROFIT as they want, that's a very different thing.

Players salaries are NOT the main thing driving ticket prices up. It's owners wanting more profits, more return on their investment. Baseball salaries are lower than basketball but are Baseball tickets any cheaper across the board? no.

Everyone knows that the owners make their money (hundreds of millions) when the sell their teams --- money that players never see and, in fact, are being asked to subsidized (via the owners' insistence that debt payments for buying the teams be factored into BRI).

If the NBA economic system is so horrible why haven't the Maloofs, for example, just sold their team? Why does the Atlanta sale nearly double the price the group paid for it.

And, yeah Avery Bradley makes more in his rookie deal (~ $4M) than I will in my lifetime. Probably about as much as me, my wife and our kid will.

But you know what... take that $4M, multiply it by 35 and that's what Steve Pagliuca paid just for his share of the Celtics. $140M is not just more than I'll make in my lifetime, but my entire extended family, my kids' kids, my wife, her entire extended family. And probably everyone who lives on my block.

And that's just what he paid for the Celtics. Boston Magazine put his worth at $410 Million --- or 100 times what Avery Bradley will make in his rookie contract. So one *co-owner* is worth more than 100 bad rookie contracts. One.

IMO, the owners are the same people, the same class of people, that put our economy in the tank and then wanted a bailout of billions.

While they might make way more than me, 90-95% of the players are not in that *class* because except for guys like Kobe or Steph Curry, their parents were like all of us --- worked for a living and/or scraped by on some work and public assistance.


/rant

Wow.  I have a lot of issues with this post, which I enjoy!  Thanks for responding.  However:


1)   Owners worth has nothing to do with this argument.  Are you saying, that because they have made huge money in other businesses / industries, that they should subsides the NBA?  That losing money running the NBA is their social debt to society for being rich?  That makes no sense.  The reasons they bought their teams all vary.  Some for ego, some for an investment on the flip (a buy and sell situation), some to make more money on operations.  It is their right to do this.  They have zero moral obligations to finance our basketball watching pleasure, or to make NBA players rich, while they lose money.
2)   Owners debt and debt payments are NOT calculated in the BRI.  BRI = Basketball Related Income.  This is the revenues that the league produces.  Now the argument from the players is about the interest charged on this debt, which is a legitimate question (and one area where I question the owner’s truthfulness).  This goes to the teams’ profitability, and as such, the owners claim that they are making or losing money.  A little accounting lesson:  Net Income = Revenues – Expenses.  So when the owners claim they are losing money, they are saying that their expenses are more than their revenues.  Debt repayments are not in this calculation.  However, Interest on the debt is.  But what happens when the owners or their related companies lend money to the team for operations?  They charge the NBA team interest on that money.  This interest is then netted against the revenue, and thus driving down net income.  Are the owners charging the teams a fair interest rate?  You can see how they can use this to play with the net income numbers.
3)   Owner’s greed is not driving up ticket prices.  Remember, the owners losing money on these teams.  One of the ways to recoup this loss, or to try and turn a profit, is to raise ticket prices.  What makes up the main expense item?  Player’s salaries.  The salaries, as noted, make up 57% of the revenues.  The other 43% are the costs associated with running the team.  Ie: GM’s and coaches salaries, scouting departments, marketing departments, stadium costs, etc.
4)   Ticket prices are driven by supply and demand.  Saying that they should lower ticket prices is a fallacy.  Who would it benefit?  A few diehard fans would.  But the rest of the ticket purchasers would sense a business opportunity themselves, and would list those tickets on Stub Hub, and try their luck.  The economic theory of supply and demand dictates that it is the consumers who determine the ticket prices.  Sure the teams could lower the prices, but the difference between what they charge, and what they end up costing, is money that is going to another business (or enterprising individual) instead of the team.  This money could have been used to upgrade your game experience, or to bring in that one extra player, who puts the team over the top.  James Posey, anyone?

Well said, especially the supply and demand.  When you look at the difference between ticket prices in Boston versus say, Atlanta, you see how this works.  If the market were set based on greed, the league would fold.  The market is set based on what people will pay.