Hunters Fault?

[hpantazo]

BTW this talk of the players getting a share of the profits is completely wrong. The players are getting their share of the revenue. It is up to the owners to make a profit after what is left.

I have a company. I pay for employee wages, taxes, raw product, overhead, shipping and handling charges etc. What I have left over after properly managing my business is profit. The average NBA team, during the last CBA received 1/30th of the 43% split of the BRI or almost $60 million after the players got their money.

In comparing an NBA team to my business the players are the employee wages and the product. The owners still have to pay taxes, overhead, marketing, coaches, other personnel etc. out of that $60 million they receive after paying the players. It is up to them to manage themselves into a profit.

They are NOT sharing the profit with the players. They are paying their employees and paying for their raw product. Those are expenses, not profits.

how would you like it if your employees asked for 53% of the total income of your business?

[mgent]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income. 

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. The cost of tuition at Harvard doesn't go to the professors, no where near half of it, and they don't demand it either. 50% of the cost of a hospital bill doesn't go to the surgeons either, and they also don't demand to have it. 

Fine. Let me simplify it then. Comparing colleges, hospitals, and whatever else you're using to the NBA is a false comparison, because they are not similar. The NBA is a star and player-driven league. While it is true that in 15 years the stars of today will be replaced by the stars of tomorrow, but that goes hand in hand with the NBA guaranteeing that the people playing are the best players in the world, and worth the time to watch over other competing league, and other sports.

Without the players, the NBA is left with a mediocre product, and some league will gain a windfall because it will frankly be more entertaining to watch.

That's not true. There are "star doctors" and "star professors" for sure, they are just not marketed in the same way as pro athletes, but they sure as heck drive up the reputations of their hospitals and universities, and the profits as well. The only difference is that they don't demand half the profit. This "star driven product" you keep referring to is the product of Stern and the NBA, not the players.

If millions of people tuned in to watch that doctor perform every surgery, you better believe he'd be getting a raise.

NBA players don't make money because they're the best at what they do, they make that much because people want to watch them.

[hpantazo]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income.  

How much does it cost to go to Harvard? How much does it cost to have the best surgeons in the world treat you?

The elite get their due. Otherwise, they go somewhere where they can.

That's a misrepresentation of my argument. The cost of tuition at Harvard doesn't go to the professors, no where near half of it, and they don't demand it either. 50% of the cost of a hospital bill doesn't go to the surgeons either, and they also don't demand to have it.  

Fine. Let me simplify it then. Comparing colleges, hospitals, and whatever else you're using to the NBA is a false comparison, because they are not similar. The NBA is a star and player-driven league. While it is true that in 15 years the stars of today will be replaced by the stars of tomorrow, but that goes hand in hand with the NBA guaranteeing that the people playing are the best players in the world, and worth the time to watch over other competing league, and other sports.

Without the players, the NBA is left with a mediocre product, and some league will gain a windfall because it will frankly be more entertaining to watch.

That's not true. There are "star doctors" and "star professors" for sure, they are just not marketed in the same way as pro athletes, but they sure as heck drive up the reputations of their hospitals and universities, and the profits as well. The only difference is that they don't demand half the profit. This "star driven product" you keep referring to is the product of Stern and the NBA, not the players.

If millions of people tuned in to watch that doctor perform every surgery, you better believe he'd be getting a raise.

NBA players don't make money because they're the best at what they do, they make that much because people want to watch them.

It's because of how the league markets them. Look at how many people tune in to watch reality shows. People in this country will watch anything if you market it well.  My original point was as a response to the other poster's comment that the players deserve 53% because they are the best at what they do and they have a unique talent.

[nickagneta]

BTW this talk of the players getting a share of the profits is completely wrong. The players are getting their share of the revenue. It is up to the owners to make a profit after what is left.

I have a company. I pay for employee wages, taxes, raw product, overhead, shipping and handling charges etc. What I have left over after properly managing my business is profit. The average NBA team, during the last CBA received 1/30th of the 43% split of the BRI or almost $60 million after the players got their money.

In comparing an NBA team to my business the players are the employee wages and the product. The owners still have to pay taxes, overhead, marketing, coaches, other personnel etc. out of that $60 million they receive after paying the players. It is up to them to manage themselves into a profit.

They are NOT sharing the profit with the players. They are paying their employees and paying for their raw product. Those are expenses, not profits.

how would you like it if your employees asked for 53% of the total income of your business?

Between the employee wages and what I pay for raw product(because without product I have nothing to sell) I pay close to that percentage. I lot of businesses do.

Don't forget...the players are not only the employees, they are also the product and without them the owners have nothing to sell. Just like any business, the NBA owners have to have a product(or service) to sell and that product is the skill of their employees, the NBA players.

[guava_wrench]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income. 

This is a very simple concept. If the NBA players decide to walk, they can't be replaced. You can replace all the doctors in any one hospital and it really won't matter because the other doctors will be comparable. This is why we have so many excellent hospitals throughout the country. Clearly the players are worth a lot since they seem to have a lot of leverage in negotiations and owners willingly give them large contracts. I don't see why players should willingly forego they market value so that owners who are far richer than the players can pocket increased profit.

An argument can easily be made that it is a privilege to own an NBA team and owners should not expect to increase their wealth from it (though they should be able to expect their team to be in the black).

I don't see how it makes sense to compare these things. It is the players that generate the revenue. They are what get ratings that lead to big TV contracts.

I don't see the connection between NBA players and researchers. The problem with the income scientists receive is that we waste too much revenue generated on non-producing upper level managers instead of on those that truly add value. The lack of value we place on teachers should lead us to question our values as a society, but it makes no sense to jump from this to take a side with the owners against players.

[Moranis]

The owners take something like 600 million off the top before BRI is even calculated.  And certain income isn't even included in the BRI calculations.  The reality is even at 53% with the deductions and items not included, the players would be getting less then 50% of the total league revenue.  

Nobody seems to mention that little tidbit of information.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?w=1b5m9&storyId=7149803&i=TOP&wjb=

[hpantazo]

that's all well and good, but many people spend their lives mastering their chosen craft and striving to be the best they can be at it, and have lived even more confined than basketball players to do so. Teachers, nurses, scientists, painters, musicians, etc. spend as much or more time on their crafts and will never make even a fraction of the money basketball players make. Research scientists, for example, spend an extra 7-10 years on graduate school followed by about 5-10 years of postdoctoral training while working days and nights and weekends to solve diseases such as cancer, and they will never receive the profits that an eventual cure will rake in, if they even find one.

Nurses go through a large amount of additional training to hone their skills and work long shifts and give everything they have to help people in need, and are never even remembered, never mind receiving a large percentage of the hospital's gross income.

Teachers are fundamental to schools, and spend most of their free time working to improve their knowledge and their teaching skills, yet what percentage do they receive out of a universities income?

Not to mention countless painters and musicians who are great at what they do but will never get recognized for one reason or another.

When pro-athletes make this comment, I say cry me a river.

You're missing a very large part of this.

When people pay as much money to see teachers teach, nurses nurse, and scientists experiment, as they pay to the NBA, they'll be asking for that 53% as well. Because they'll be generating the income.

Not so. The last time I checked, people pay a ton of money to send their kids to school or to spend time in hospitals, but the teachers, doctors, and nurses don't demand 53% of the income.  

This is a very simple concept. If the NBA players decide to walk, they can't be replaced. You can replace all the doctors in any one hospital and it really won't matter because the other doctors will be comparable. This is why we have so many excellent hospitals throughout the country. Clearly the players are worth a lot since they seem to have a lot of leverage in negotiations and owners willingly give them large contracts. I don't see why players should willingly forego they market value so that owners who are far richer than the players can pocket increased profit.

An argument can easily be made that it is a privilege to own an NBA team and owners should not expect to increase their wealth from it (though they should be able to expect their team to be in the black).

I don't see how it makes sense to compare these things. It is the players that generate the revenue. They are what get ratings that lead to big TV contracts.

I don't see the connection between NBA players and researchers. The problem with the income scientists receive is that we waste too much revenue generated on non-producing upper level managers instead of on those that truly add value. The lack of value we place on teachers should lead us to question our values as a society, but it makes no sense to jump from this to take a side with the owners against players.

it's not that simple of a concept. The truth is we have a severe shortage of high quality primary care doctors because they don't receive enough profit compared to other specializations, and we have a shortage of excellent teachers in public schools for similar reasons. Our health care and our schools suffer for this. Poorer quality doctors and teachers replace high quality doctors and teachers all the time, the problem is most people don't know enough to understand the difference and are taken advantage of. Yet you argue that we should feel bad for pro athletes who make exponentially more than any of them because their bosses want to make sure they don't go bankrupt?

[Chris]

This is EVERYONE's fault (well, other than the fans).  The owners, the players, Stern, Silver, Hunter, Kessler.  To try to pin the blame on anyone in particular lets everyone else who is complicit off the hook. 

[thirstyboots18]

Right, Chris.  Idiocy is nondiscriminatory and stupidity is universal!

[indeedproceed]

it's not that simple of a concept. The truth is we have a severe shortage of high quality primary care doctors because they don't receive enough profit compared to other specializations, and we have a shortage of excellent teachers in public schools for similar reasons. Our health care and our schools suffer for this. Poorer quality doctors and teachers replace high quality doctors and teachers all the time, the problem is most people don't know enough to understand the difference and are taken advantage of. Yet you argue that we should feel bad for pro athletes who make exponentially more than any of them because their bosses want to make sure they don't go bankrupt?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Its basically 'Doctors and teachers aren't paid enough, so there aren't enough of them and those we do have are not of the highest quality, but you want me to feel bad for pro athletes?'

THat's not anywhere close to relevant. How much teachers, doctors, lion tamers, fluffers, pet photographers, or writers for 30 rock make is not relevant to the NBA labor discussion.

[Roy H.]

This is EVERYONE's fault (well, other than the fans).  The owners, the players, Stern, Silver, Hunter, Kessler.  To try to pin the blame on anyone in particular lets everyone else who is complicit off the hook. 

Right, Chris.  Idiocy is nondiscriminatory and stupidity is universal!

Agreed.  I tried to touch on this concept in my front page article this morning, but you two just put it more eloquently.

[hpantazo]

it's not that simple of a concept. The truth is we have a severe shortage of high quality primary care doctors because they don't receive enough profit compared to other specializations, and we have a shortage of excellent teachers in public schools for similar reasons. Our health care and our schools suffer for this. Poorer quality doctors and teachers replace high quality doctors and teachers all the time, the problem is most people don't know enough to understand the difference and are taken advantage of. Yet you argue that we should feel bad for pro athletes who make exponentially more than any of them because their bosses want to make sure they don't go bankrupt?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Its basically 'Doctors and teachers aren't paid enough, so there aren't enough of them and those we do have are not of the highest quality, but you want me to feel bad for pro athletes?'

THat's not anywhere close to relevant. How much teachers, doctors, lion tamers, fluffers, pet photographers, or writers for 30 rock make is not relevant to the NBA labor discussion.

It is when people try to say that we should feel bad for the players. That's my main point. I don't feel bad for any of them. Even if the players somehow get left with 40% of the BRI or less, I won't feel bad at all for them.

[Chris]

it's not that simple of a concept. The truth is we have a severe shortage of high quality primary care doctors because they don't receive enough profit compared to other specializations, and we have a shortage of excellent teachers in public schools for similar reasons. Our health care and our schools suffer for this. Poorer quality doctors and teachers replace high quality doctors and teachers all the time, the problem is most people don't know enough to understand the difference and are taken advantage of. Yet you argue that we should feel bad for pro athletes who make exponentially more than any of them because their bosses want to make sure they don't go bankrupt?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Its basically 'Doctors and teachers aren't paid enough, so there aren't enough of them and those we do have are not of the highest quality, but you want me to feel bad for pro athletes?'

THat's not anywhere close to relevant. How much teachers, doctors, lion tamers, fluffers, pet photographers, or writers for 30 rock make is not relevant to the NBA labor discussion.

It is when people try to say that we should feel bad for the players. That's my main point. I don't feel bad for any of them. Even if the players somehow get left with 40% of the BRI or less, I won't feel bad at all for them.

Yeah, I don't think it has anything to do with the negotiation...but I think it has plenty to do with the PR battle.  No one is going to win over many fans by complaining about making millions of dollars to do something that most people would pay to do. 

[indeedproceed]

it's not that simple of a concept. The truth is we have a severe shortage of high quality primary care doctors because they don't receive enough profit compared to other specializations, and we have a shortage of excellent teachers in public schools for similar reasons. Our health care and our schools suffer for this. Poorer quality doctors and teachers replace high quality doctors and teachers all the time, the problem is most people don't know enough to understand the difference and are taken advantage of. Yet you argue that we should feel bad for pro athletes who make exponentially more than any of them because their bosses want to make sure they don't go bankrupt?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Its basically 'Doctors and teachers aren't paid enough, so there aren't enough of them and those we do have are not of the highest quality, but you want me to feel bad for pro athletes?'

THat's not anywhere close to relevant. How much teachers, doctors, lion tamers, fluffers, pet photographers, or writers for 30 rock make is not relevant to the NBA labor discussion.

It is when people try to say that we should feel bad for the players. That's my main point. I don't feel bad for any of them. Even if the players somehow get left with 40% of the BRI or less, I won't feel bad at all for them.

Well that's a horse of a different color then. And, while it s a viewpoint that I'm sure lots of people share, its not one that I think is valid (because I believe the players to be the biggest factor in the growth of the NBA).

[angryguy77]

I'd love to see wages be determined on performance+plus a small base pay. This would make players play 100% all year, and it would limit tanking.