Do you believe the players' salaries (as a union) was the prime factor in the alleged 'losses' the owners have suffered?
No idea. I do know the NBA has showed the players their audited records, and that the players have acknowledged some level of losses, although they're skeptical it's $300 million. As for where you attribute the losses to, obviously salaries is a huge part of it. When the average team is allegedly losing $10 million per season, and the average team's salary is around $65 million, that's a huge expense.
Because I'm not even sure strictly speaking, when considering all basketball related revenue (which is different than BRI) that the league, as a whole actually suffered losses.
It's okay to be skeptical, but to my knowledge, not even the union has argued that the NBA was profitable. Thus, one of the reasons they're making so many concessions.
On top of that, going from a 57% split to a 50/50 split seems to me to be huge win for the owners, and would account for all the money they're alleging to lose 'per season', and that's before the unveil their new profit sharing model, which should've accounted for most of those losses to small market teams in the first place.
I don't understand why people get hung up on revenue sharing as it relates to BRI. Yes, revenue sharing is a part of competitive balance. However, it's not going to help the league's bottom line. If the league is losing $300 million per season, no amount of revenue sharing is going to help that; at best, each team is losing $10 million per year.
As far as not meeting the players on a level playing surface, it seems like there is only one side giving back in these negotiations. The owners want a bigger share of the pie, salary roll backs, more control over player movement, and less obligated money to unproductive players (hence the d-league provisions).
The league is out of balance right now, in favor of the players. The owners are trying to re-set that balance. In six years, perhaps the players will strike to re-set it once again. That's how this stuff works.
The players want....? To not get screwed too bad? Seems like only one side of the deal here is getting everything on their christmas list. I'd hardly call that give and take.
Again, not everything is "fair". Not everything is "give and take". Let's use a political example. President Obama has appointed two liberal nominees to the Supreme Court. Should his next appointment be a strict-constructionist conservative, in the spirit of give-and-take? Of course not. Those who have power and leverage use that power to promote their self-interest. It's how the market works.
That's a valid point. On principals alone, I'd say stick it out, no matter the cost if you feel like you're being treated like a second class citizen.
But from the players earning potential and my own perspective of 'dude, there's no basketball', I have to say it is getting tiresome.
Regarding that earning potential, here's what Michael McCann (SI's legal expert) tweeted:
Avg NBA career lasts 4.7 years. One lost year is 21.3% of their NBA careers.
I hope the principle is worth it.
Topic: Breaking news: Hunter says there will be disclaimer of interest (Read 21100 times)