What would you classify as waste in the 43% share the owners were getting? Team planes? Marketing campaigns? Front office salaries?
Hand over the financials, let's give it a shot.
When the market dictates that in order to compete in the league, you have to overspend on role players that are no sure thing to deliver, then the chance you will recieve a return on investment goes way down.
Funny enough, and not at all coincidentally, this is a problem that can be more or less solved
if people stop being greedy without touching the BRI split.
How can you ignore overhead and expenses? You NEED a second bullet point to continue your argument.There is no substance if you keep making analogies to how much money 43% of the revenue is. [...] It costs a large amount of money to run NBA teams. Sorry I dont have a sarcastic analogy to illustrate how much money that is.
I am incredulous that 43% of eleventy hojillion dollars is insufficient to run the NBA profitably, when it might be enough to run a state or a small country.
Players making money and not performing is tangible.
I think that perhaps you misspelled "a matter of opinion". The owners would be in serious trouble without the current horde of overpaid nobodies, and by "serious trouble" I mean "out of business". There is a lot of money in professional basketball, and though it pains me, my inherent human predisposition towards fairness compels me to argue that the players ought to be compensated as the basically irreplacable assets that they are.
Saying owners run teams ineffieciently with too much waste without pointing out specifics is a soft case. You are speculating.
Information is limited, speculation is necessary, but skepticism is reasonable.
No one is bailing anyone out. You make it sound like the owners are asking for handouts.
Aren't they, though? It's more than just wanting a bigger piece of the pie in a void, they are arguing that they are losing money, and their proposed solution is to take more from player salaries.