1. Why should the owners agree to even a 50/50 split? The owners bear all the liability and all the risk in this equation.
The owners have all the liability in this equation -
* They have to pay the salaries of the players, their own staffs (coaches, scouts, trainers, marketing teams, management, security, Doctors, surgeries, the airfares to fly, the equipment, the daily spending allowances while on the road the daily spending fees. They have to pay stadium fees if they don't own the joint, pay the staff during games, insurances on everything, taxes on everything.
They are liable for everything and can be sued seven ways to Sunday for almost anything imaginable.
What, exactly, is the players liability?
* They get a contract because they are uniquely talented at what they do
* They show up on time - "usually" - to play a game, or a practice.
* They have people carrying their bags their sneakers, their clothing, basically their jock strap.
* They fly around the country, stay in 4 star hotels and play a 48 minute game 3-4 times a week. Have some practices and game tape in between and have the summer off.
* Basketball, even practicing is "fun".
* They have world class trainers, doctors and physical therapists pampering them night and day.
They may attract the crowds - but the owners have the liability of putting together the venue for the crowds to enjoy.
I would think anything more than a 53/47 split in favor of the owners would be ridiculously unfair. And it doesn't matter that the owners may make a lot of money. They should, they have all the liability. The players are "employees".
Some industries are more labour intensive, some are more capital intensive. It depends on the mix of factors of production that result in the output.
Professional sports are one of the most labour intensive industries. Hence why salaries in professional leagues tend to be above 50% of the revenue. In some leagues, in very mature and global sports, like soccer, it goes till 70%-80%. People pay to see the players showcase athletic abilities, the rest of the stuff is pretty irrelevant - so much that if the Celtics and the Lakers were playing each other featuring some random D-League players and at the same time you had Rondo, Pierce and KG battling Kobe, Gasol and Bynum in a Boston Patriots vs Golden California game, the later would attract much more attention and attendance. To put it in simple terms: there are more people with enough money and management know-how to own and operate a professional basketball league than players with enough quality to take the game to a level that becomes fascinating - and profitable.
Owners tend to be pretty irrelevant in this type of industry - at least since United Artists. The investment of capital is relatively low - in fact, most NBA owners didn't need to invest a single cent of their money and very, very few actually manage their franchises - most are absent owners. In most cases, workers in this type of industry aren't even employers, they just have an agent.
It's irrelevant if you believe that what the players do is worth this or that money. If you think it isn't worth your money, stop watching NBA games.
I think you should also rethink your stance on the risk thing. Risk implies investment of one's self wealth. The reason most teams are "losing" money is because owners arent' really investing money in buying them. In fact, in some cases they're using them as cash-cows. Why do you think the Celtics debt-to-equity ratio is 50%? Because Wyc invested his own money and they just borrow a lot to pay for the players salaries? They make more than enough money to pay salaries. Why did they borrow so much money then - do you want to take a guess?
The risk isn't that large if you're not using your own money.
Secondly, what the owners are trying to do is to make owning a NBA franchise a risk-free enterprise. They're trying to game things in order that you can own a franchise in the smallest market, mismanage it badly, sign players that nobody wants to see, p--- off your community and fanbase to the point that nobody wants to buy tickets or turn on the tv, win 15 games, waste a lot of money hiring 14 of your relatives, sign your GM's son or your favourite barmaid as scouts, don't care a bit about maximizing revenue or minimizing expenses... and still make a profit.
There's no risk in the type of business owners are trying to create with their CBA proposal.
2. I can understand a massive labor brawl during great economic times. But this labor strike is affecting thousands of related jobs that are desperately needed by people during one of the worst economic downturns since the great depression.
I think it just looks really bad for the league that these two camps are in a p---ing match about exactly how many millions they each will end up making.
And I am all for KG, Kobe, etc, making $20 mil a year if the market bears it. I love it
But in this economic environment, where so many other people are relying on the related jobs the NBA creates - I say everyone get back to work immediately under the current agreement or a slightly altered agreement for one year, with ongoing negotiations for a final deal being done behind the scenes throughout the season.
My two cents.
It's amazing that people are still talking about a strike.
It's a lockout.
Topic: Why a 50 / 50 Split? and another thought... (Read 14881 times)