Question for the Smarties...

[MullinFan]

Since we are headed for a lockout it seems, what happens if we lose a whole season of basketball? Do players lose a year off their contracts as well? Or does it pick up where the new season left off?

[Mal]

I am not sure, but as I recall answers are yes, yes

[MullinFan]

Seems we have only one smarty here? Thanks for your response!!!

[GSH]

My understanding is that the contract continues to run. Since they are not playing, they would (obviously) not be paid. But they would lose one year off of their contract. They would lose a whole year of salary, which they would not recover.

Think about it like this: it's like what happens when a player gets suspended. They can't play, and they don't get paid - even though their contract calls for them to be paid for 82 games. They wind up getting paid for only 81 games, instead. In the case of a lockout, they wind up getting paid for 0 games. But the contract continues to run. In the 98-99 lockout, the players only got paid for 50 games. They were "locked out" of the first 32.

Stern said that players would be free to play elsewhere. But he said that knowing that FIBA rules require teams to honor player contracts with other leagues, which means that locked out NBA players could not actually sign with a FIBA team. The NBA contracts would obviously still be in force.

[Mel_13]

The status of existing contracts is a subject for negotiation in the ongoing talks for a new CBA. Anything is possible.

As to what is likely, there is the last lockout to look to. In 1999, the contracts continued to run and the players were paid a pro-rated portion of their 98-99 contracts based upon a 50 game season.

[GSH]

The status of existing contracts is a subject for negotiation in the ongoing talks for a new CBA. Anything is possible.




I don't think so, Mel. Not unless the union is de-certified. But the OP just asked about a lockout. And a lockout doesn't invalidate existing contracts.

I suppose they could agree to re-negotiate contracts, if everyone agreed. (I'm not even sure of that.) But there would be too many over-paid players who would never agree. And too many cheap contracts (like rookie scale deals) for the owners to ever agree.

If the union de-certified, the whole thing could/would go to hell. But that could only happen if the players have grounds to sue the owners for anti-trust violations. I don't think any court is going to allow that in the case of the NBA. So the owners have a lot of leverage on the players, because they won't get paid. The players' leverage is that the owners stand to lose money, too.

I think you can pretty much count on the idea that if there is an entire lockout season (and nothing else), the old contracts will remain in place, and the players will simply lose a year of pay, and one year off their current deal.

[ElNono]

If they lose their pay, then they wouldn't be guaranteed contracts (which in most cases they are).

Decertifying the union would probably void those contracts though.