Ramifications of greed and ego

[LB3533]

The owners are trying to look for a positive business model that will lead to profits.

The players want to try and limit the damage and protect their current earning power.

While I can understand both sides, I point out their both after money.

Greed is defined as:

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

I don't buy all the talk of the owners about the poor business model.   Since when are the employess responsible for a poor business model.  Both sides made the last agreeement and neither had the foresight to see the economy tanking and revenue being down. 

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.  I get that they are the draw for the game and they are trying to preserve hard win gains in income.  The average income of an NBA player is  presently $5.15 million dollars.  The minimum salary is $473, 604 dollars.  This isn't exactly blue collar wages.

Almost everyone wants more money in life.  You can twist it as maximizing their income but isn't that still greed to some degree?

1. It's true the economy took a down turn, but NBA revenue has actually increased every year since 2002-2003 season.

2. Players get paid to entertain and perform their occupation at the highest level. Not many people will shell out 5 bucks to watch me play Connect 4.

3. The NBA median salary is a more accurate representation of what most (70-90%) NBA players make, somewhere between 2-3 million per.

4. I think what may be more accurate is "Almost everyone wants to protect their own interests". If the owners wanted more money they would never have re-upped the past CBA in 2005, they would have tried another lockout.

5. Greed, to me is, wanting more and then when you got it, wanting even more after that. The owners have already killed the players, they just want to stab them a few more extra times....

[indeedproceed]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

[Chris]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

[Fafnir]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

[LB3533]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

In theory, owning a team/franchise is an investment.

The owners could, in theory, make money each year for a long time. If they leave the team within the family for generations, the time limit is endless....virtually, unless the franchise is sold or the league goes under.

Players don't have that long of a time frame to earn their income.

Players don't put up their money back into the NBA, but they do put in the most important form of labor.

I truly believe the Players should earn more than 50% of the BRI....but that there shouldn't be any guaranteed contracts.

Whatever the owners owe the players in the end of each season, split that sum up amongst all 450 players.

That's a heck of a lot better than guaranteeing it to an under performing, lazy, or injured player.

Plus this also cuts the team's responsibility from being locked into a bad long term deal.

[indeedproceed]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

And owners own franchises for decades...most players' careers last what, 3 years, maybe 4? Some players go longer, but a lot of guys don't even make it through their rookie contracts.

[Chris]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

True.  But they also take the risk that the franchise might depreciate in value.  The players don't take that risk.

[Fafnir]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

True.  But they also take the risk that the franchise might depreciate in value.  The players don't take that risk.

Indeed they have the guarentee that their athletic talents will depreciate.

[Chris]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

True.  But they also take the risk that the franchise might depreciate in value.  The players don't take that risk.

Indeed they have the guarentee that their athletic talents will depreciate.

Absolutely.  Not sure how that has anything to do with whether 50% of all revenue isn't the lions share of the money earned, when no other group is earning anywhere close to that amount though.

Again, both sides are going to make a lot of money here.  The players, even at 50% will be making a larger percentage of profit than the owners will...and they should be. 

[LB3533]

Absolutely.  Not sure how that has anything to do with whether 50% of all revenue isn't the lions share of the money earned, when no other group is earning anywhere close to that amount though.

Again, both sides are going to make a lot of money here.  The players, even at 50% will be making a larger percentage of profit than the owners will...and they should be. 

You must be talking about the 55% of the BRI established in 1999 and then bumped up to 57% in 2005....how did those rates get established?

Were the NBA players the only side at the meeting table back then?

Surgeons in the USA average a base salary of about 300K per year.

Neuro-surgeons...about 473K per year. Should neuro surgeons take pay cuts just to match the rest of the surgeons in the nation?

[Chris]

Absolutely.  Not sure how that has anything to do with whether 50% of all revenue isn't the lions share of the money earned, when no other group is earning anywhere close to that amount though.

Again, both sides are going to make a lot of money here.  The players, even at 50% will be making a larger percentage of profit than the owners will...and they should be. 

You must be talking about the 55% of the BRI established in 1999 and then bumped up to 57% in 2005....how did those rates get established?

Were the NBA players the only side at the meeting table back then?

Surgeons in the USA average a base salary of about 300K per year.

Neuro-surgeons...about 473K per year. Should neuro surgeons take pay cuts just to match the rest of the surgeons in the nation?

No, I was referring to the 50% revenue share under a new play.  Even with that cut in salary, the NBA's average player salary will still be significantly higher than the average player salary of any professional sports league in the US (and I believe the entire world, but I am not positive about that one).

As far as how they got established, they were collectively bargained.  Now, those deals are over, so they are negotiating a new deal, with the knowledge of how things worked out in the previous deal.

I think I am missing your point here.

[slamtheking]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them. 

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket. 

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%? 

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

True.  But they also take the risk that the franchise might depreciate in value.  The players don't take that risk.

Indeed they have the guarentee that their athletic talents will depreciate.

not true necessarily with the league drafting so many young kids on potential.  the expectation is that their skillsets will get better.  This would include even the 4-year seniors that get drafted for that matter.

Besides, the players have that advantage of getting that 4-year degree to fall back on after their careers are up.   

[Fafnir]

Absolutely.  Not sure how that has anything to do with whether 50% of all revenue isn't the lions share of the money earned, when no other group is earning anywhere close to that amount though.

Again, both sides are going to make a lot of money here.  The players, even at 50% will be making a larger percentage of profit than the owners will...and they should be. 

You must be talking about the 55% of the BRI established in 1999 and then bumped up to 57% in 2005....how did those rates get established?

Were the NBA players the only side at the meeting table back then?

Surgeons in the USA average a base salary of about 300K per year.

Neuro-surgeons...about 473K per year. Should neuro surgeons take pay cuts just to match the rest of the surgeons in the nation?

No, I was referring to the 50% revenue share under a new play.  Even with that cut in salary, the NBA's average player salary will still be significantly higher than the average player salary of any professional sports league in the US (and I believe the entire world, but I am not positive about that one).

As a labor force they'd be getting one of the worst deals.

[Fafnir]

I think the players get paid to play a game.  I would take 50% were it me.

This is an opinion that I just don't understand. I get that we all wish we could play (sport x) for a living and make money on a level like pros do. I get that.

But the fact is, people pay lots and lots and lots of money to see the pros play those games, and they pay lots and lots and lots of moeny to eat at thsoe games, drink at those games, and wear stuff with copyrighted images and content at those game. THat's a ton of money.

And the players are the ones playing the game. How are they not due a lion's share of the money earned around a game people pay to see them play?

I agree that they deserve a lions share.  But I would argue that 50% of all basketball related revenue (not profits) go to them.  

The idea that it is 50/50 just isn't accurate, because the 50% going to the owners, isn't really going to the owners.  The majority of that is going back into the business, with only a small percentage going into the owners pocket.  

So, the players are getting 50% of revenue as pure profit, while the owners are getting what? 5%? 10%?  

Now, I am by no means saying the owners are getting a raw deal either.  I just think either side complaining about an unfair split is bunk.  This isn't about fairness, it is about getting as much as you can.  Because when you are talking about that kind of cash, the only ones who are getting a raw deal are the fans.

The owners also get the appreciation in value of the franchise, that's a big chunk of change.

True.  But they also take the risk that the franchise might depreciate in value.  The players don't take that risk.

Indeed they have the guarentee that their athletic talents will depreciate.

not true necessarily with the league drafting so many young kids on potential.  the expectation is that their skillsets will get better.  This would include even the 4-year seniors that get drafted for that matter.

Besides, the players have that advantage of getting that 4-year degree to fall back on after their careers are up.  

Even the best can't miss prospect faces serious risk to the point that the expected value of their talents is only going down on the average. (For every player that develops many are busts or blow out their knees) The only reason young players are "valued" lower is the rookie salary scale supresses the market.

The owners have an asset that other than the Bobcats (which were managed very poorly) has never depreciated when sold.

[Chris]

Absolutely.  Not sure how that has anything to do with whether 50% of all revenue isn't the lions share of the money earned, when no other group is earning anywhere close to that amount though.

Again, both sides are going to make a lot of money here.  The players, even at 50% will be making a larger percentage of profit than the owners will...and they should be. 

You must be talking about the 55% of the BRI established in 1999 and then bumped up to 57% in 2005....how did those rates get established?

Were the NBA players the only side at the meeting table back then?

Surgeons in the USA average a base salary of about 300K per year.

Neuro-surgeons...about 473K per year. Should neuro surgeons take pay cuts just to match the rest of the surgeons in the nation?

No, I was referring to the 50% revenue share under a new play.  Even with that cut in salary, the NBA's average player salary will still be significantly higher than the average player salary of any professional sports league in the US (and I believe the entire world, but I am not positive about that one).

As a labor force they'd be getting one of the worst deals.

Fair enough.  Then they should negotiate better.  Because this is not about fairness, it is about who can get the best deal for themselves.