The NBA isn't losing money: required lockout reading

[ShoogarBear]

This article should be required reading before anyone spouts off about what the lockout is about:

http://goo.gl/c4vk2

It's actually very readable, with clear charts and graphics.

Bottom line:
1. The NBA had an overall profit margin of 5% in 09-10, and it has been about 7% over the past decade.

2. HOWEVER, baseball and football have been chugging along at somewhat higher profit margins.

3. NBA player salaries are pretty much in line with other sports as a percentage of revenue.

4. Yeah, there are a lot of teams in the red, but they are not really bleeding money, and the big-market teams are raking it in. Greater revenue sharing like that baseball has adopted would level the field considerably.

[ginobilized]

Good article.
we might be in for a long lockout....

[ShoogarBear]

If Stern's goal is to make every single team (or most of them) profitable just by cutting salaries from 57% to 45% of revenue WITHOUT some kind of revenue sharing, then he's lost his mind.

If the goal is to get the profit margin closer to 8%, then we're only probably only talking about a matter of about $100-200 million a year, and they may be able to do that by reducing the player shares to somewhere around 55%.

But the real key is whether the owners really care about competitive balance or are they just about the money. If the former, then they have to do the revenue sharing.

[GSH]

Some of what the article says is correct, and some of it is bullshit. Either based on conjecture, or simply intentionally misleading. Typical of the NY Times. It does underscore one point that is absolutely true, but it only tells half of the story. The major roadblocks in the process now are 100% due to the fact that the league is controlled by the big market teams AND the superstar players.

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

But what the article doesn't mention is that the superstar players also have different interests than the second-tier players, which is having a big impact on the part of the negotiations involving contracts. And, once again, it's the players at the top who have all the leverage.

The article really pisses me off, though, when it talks about 17 of 30 NBA teams losing money like that is no big deal. And comparing that to baseball at a time when almost one-third of those teams were losing money. The difference is so stark, it's stupid to even think about comparing the two situations. I don't think the reporter is that stupid - they're being intentionally misleading. Which, to me, says they have an agenda. I don't have much patience for reporters with agendas.

You don't have to be a reporter to figure out that 17 of 30 teams are losing money, 6-7 teams are doing all right, and another 6-7 are making a ridiculous shitload of money. And you don't have to be a reporter to figure out that the players' salaries are similarly top-loaded. Any solution that doesn't address those problems is flawed before it ever gets started. But the people with the biggest sticks don't want things any other way.

[ShoogarBear]

Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh

The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.

This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.

http://bizofbasketball.com/images/NBAProfitsandLosses800x541.jpg

[ThaBigFundamental21]

Can't wait to see a league with profit sharing and better contracts. I hate to see a lockout but I absolutely think it's necessary. It's terrible knowing a whole season will be lost and Tim will be 36 when play resumes.

[TJastal]

Some of what the article says is correct, and some of it is bullshit. Either based on conjecture, or simply intentionally misleading. Typical of the NY Times. It does underscore one point that is absolutely true, but it only tells half of the story. The major roadblocks in the process now are 100% due to the fact that the league is controlled by the big market teams AND the superstar players.

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

But what the article doesn't mention is that the superstar players also have different interests than the second-tier players, which is having a big impact on the part of the negotiations involving contracts. And, once again, it's the players at the top who have all the leverage.

The article really pisses me off, though, when it talks about 17 of 30 NBA teams losing money like that is no big deal. And comparing that to baseball at a time when almost one-third of those teams were losing money. The difference is so stark, it's stupid to even think about comparing the two situations. I don't think the reporter is that stupid - they're being intentionally misleading. Which, to me, says they have an agenda. I don't have much patience for reporters with agendas.

You don't have to be a reporter to figure out that 17 of 30 teams are losing money, 6-7 teams are doing all right, and another 6-7 are making a ridiculous shitload of money. And you don't have to be a reporter to figure out that the players' salaries are similarly top-loaded. Any solution that doesn't address those problems is flawed before it ever gets started. But the people with the biggest sticks don't want things any other way.

Obviously the pretentious snobs at the New York Times could care less about the rest of the league, long their precious knickerbockers are raking in the change.

[DieMrBond]

NBA.com's Statement:

NBA responds to NYTimes.com blog based on inaccurate info

By NBA Official Release
Posted Jul 6 2011 12:33AM

The league office released this official statement earlier this evening:

The information from Forbes that serves as the basis for this article is inaccurate and we do not know how they do their calculations. Forbes does not have the financial data for our teams and the magazine's estimates do not reflect reality.

Precisely to avoid this issue, the NBA and its teams shared their complete league and team audited financials as well as our state and Federal tax returns with the Players Union. Those financials demonstrate the substantial and indisputable losses the league has incurred over the past several years.

The analysis that was posted this afternoon has several significant factual inaccuracies, including:

"(The NBA) is a fundamentally healthy and profitable business"

• The league lost money every year of the just expiring CBA. During these years, the league has never had positive Net Income, EBITDA or Operating Income.

"Many of the purported losses result from an unusual accounting treatment related to depreciation and amortization when a team is sold."

• We use the conventional and generally accepted accounting (GAAP) approach and include in our financial reporting the depreciation of the capital expenditures made in the normal course of business by the teams as they are a substantial and necessary cost of doing business.

We do not include purchase price amortization from when a team is sold or under any circumstances in any of our reported losses. Put simply, none of the league losses are related to team purchase or sale accounting.

"Another trick...moving income from the team's balance sheet to that of a related business like a cable network..."

• All revenues included in Basketball Related Income ("BRI") and reported in our financial statements have been audited by an accounting firm jointly engaged by the players' union and the league. They include basketball revenues reported on related entities' books.

"Ticket revenues... are up 22% compared to 1999-2000 season"

• Ticket revenues have increased 12% over the 10 year period, not the 22% reported.

"17 teams lost money according to Forbes ... Most of these losses were small..."

• Forbes' claim is inaccurate. In 2009-10, 23 teams had net income losses. The losses were in no way "small" as 11 teams lost more than $20M each on a net income basis.

"The profits made by the Knicks, Bulls and Lakers alone would be enough to cover the losses of all 17 unprofitable teams."

• The Knicks, Bulls and Lakers combined net income for 2009-10 does not cover the losses of the 23 unprofitable teams. Our net loss for that year, including the gains from the seven profitable teams, was -$340 million.

"Forbes's estimates -- a $183 million profit for the NBA in 2009-10, and those issued by the league, which claim a $370M loss..."

• Forbes's data is inaccurate. Our losses for 2009-10 were -$340 million, not -$370 million as the article states.

"The leaked financial statements for one team, the New Orleans Hornets, closely matched the Forbes data..."

• This is not an accurate statement as operating income in the latest Forbes data (2009-10) is $5M greater than what is reported in the Hornets audited financials.

[DieMrBond]

But really, what else did you expect? Of course the NBA was going to say the data was incorrect or misleading... slander is the name of the game?

[GSH]

Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh

The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.

This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.

http://bizofbasketball.com/images/NBAProfitsandLosses800x541.jpg


Note the teams that have profited by intentionally sucking. The teams that really get hit are the ones that try to compete (i.e. - spend money on players) without being in a big media market.

This graph alone is enough to see why the big market teams don't want anything to change.

[ShoogarBear]

Some of what the article says is correct, and some of it is bullshit. Either based on conjecture, or simply intentionally misleading. Typical of the NY Times. It does underscore one point that is absolutely true, but it only tells half of the story. The major roadblocks in the process now are 100% due to the fact that the league is controlled by the big market teams AND the superstar players.

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

But what the article doesn't mention is that the superstar players also have different interests than the second-tier players, which is having a big impact on the part of the negotiations involving contracts. And, once again, it's the players at the top who have all the leverage.

The article really pisses me off, though, when it talks about 17 of 30 NBA teams losing money like that is no big deal. And comparing that to baseball at a time when almost one-third of those teams were losing money. The difference is so stark, it's stupid to even think about comparing the two situations. I don't think the reporter is that stupid - they're being intentionally misleading. Which, to me, says they have an agenda. I don't have much patience for reporters with agendas.

You don't have to be a reporter to figure out that 17 of 30 teams are losing money, 6-7 teams are doing all right, and another 6-7 are making a ridiculous shitload of money. And you don't have to be a reporter to figure out that the players' salaries are similarly top-loaded. Any solution that doesn't address those problems is flawed before it ever gets started. But the people with the biggest sticks don't want things any other way.

Umm, maybe you weren't around for the last lockout when the superstar players agreed for a cap on individual salaries? Perhaps you didn't how Tim Duncan (for one) probably lost on the order of $40 million (don't recall the exact number) in future earnings as a result of the CBA (not that he complained)? How it was almost unanimously agreed that 1998 lockout was a victory for the owners, which they promptly pissed away by overpaying Rashard Lewis and Troy Murphy.

And ummm, don't you think if it's a problem of relative distribution of player salaries that maybe then the PLAYERS would be complaining about it? Because I haven't heard any. Unlike the owners, who are certainly complaining about revenue distribution.

There are only two fundamental questions:

1. What do you think the owner's profit margin should be (or, alternatively, what should the players percentage of revenue be)? It's already at least 5-8%. Should it be 10%? 20% (higher than the NFLs)?

2. Should there be any sort of revenue distribution between the teams, or should the Knicks, Bulls, and Lakers just continue to make money hand over fist?

If the league as a whole is well profitable, and it is, then it shouldn't be on the players to make further sacrifices to make every team profitable.

[benefactor]

lol NBA. Those responses sound like the Iraqi Information Minister.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

This article should be required reading before anyone spouts off about what the lockout is about:

http://goo.gl/c4vk2

It's actually very readable, with clear charts and graphics.

Bottom line:
1. The NBA had an overall profit margin of 5% in 09-10, and it has been about 7% over the past decade.

2. HOWEVER, baseball and football have been chugging along at somewhat higher profit margins.

3. NBA player salaries are pretty much in line with other sports as a percentage of revenue.

4. Yeah, there are a lot of teams in the red, but they are not really bleeding money, and the big-market teams are raking it in. Greater revenue sharing like that baseball has adopted would level the field considerably.

Thanks Shoog, excellent article. And an interesting reply from the NBA. I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. :lol

The NBA needs to learn to bring in shorter contracts, teams need to learn to revenue-share, continue to expand NBA League Pass revenues internationally, and GET THE FUCK ON WITH PLAYING BASKETBALL. :pctoss

A lockout will hurt them more than they know. They'll lose fans to other sports and hobbies - there are too many things for people to do today, and they won't stand for crap like this. Hard core fans like you and I will, but they'll lose a lot of mainstream support, and that translates to merch $.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the current nba share tv revenue, how is it allocated? evenly among teams? or the bigger clubs getter the bigger piece of the pie...

[Bruno]

I don't know if the NBA isn't losing money but what I'm quite sure is that they aren't bleeding money like Stern say it.

There are some flexibility in accounting methods and owner's best interest is to have a league that is "losing" money to lower players salaries.

Since you can't really trust accounting numbers, the best way to know NBA's financial state is to look at facts:
- Last summer, teams have spend a crazy amount of money. Average players like Drew Gooden got a lot of money.
- Teams have been sold for a lot of money like GSW for $500M. Even the Hornets could have been sold for $300M but the league decided it wasn't enough and bought them for $350M.
- TV ratings have been great this year and new TV deals should be better.
- Celtics gave $35M to Doc Rivers.

Facts show a league that generate a lot of interest with owners spending a lot of money on players/coaches and with owners able to sell their teams for a lot of money. Facts don't compute at all with a league bleeding money.

[TJastal]

The Forbes data may suffer from this lack of publicly-available information, but they remain the only independent estimates of the league’s financial condition. In my view, a degree of skepticism is appropriate toward any claims made about the N.B.A.’s finances.

lol independant "estimates"

[spurs50_]

I know when we won one of the championships it was reported that the Spurs lost money. If that is true, something has to change.

[ogait]

the current nba share tv revenue, how is it allocated? evenly among teams? or the bigger clubs getter the bigger piece of the pie...

National US tv (ESPN and TNT) it's evenly shared among the 30 teams I believe.

Local TV revenues is where there are big gaps between the big and the small markets.

Obviously a team like the Lakers who has a huge local tv contract isn't interested in sharing that money with the rest of the league. That makes sense, but it will also make sense that they aren't allowed to spend much more than the rest of the league.

[ChuckD]

I was reading somewhere that the two lockouts are totally different. The NFL is sharing 70% of ALL revenues. With the NBA, the figure is around 25-30%. They need to get their own house in order before they ask for give backs more than the players have already offered, about $100,000,000 a year, last I heard.

[bluebellmaniac]

The NBA financials remind me of how Hollywood does their financials. Thus Harry Potter films which gross billions of $$$ actually lose money.

Yeah right.

Billions in revenue for television. Much more for advertisers like Nike, Coca Cola, etc ad nauseum? Luxury boxes going up like crazy and most cities pay for the arenas which is the 2nd biggest cost (next to salaries).

I could run a pretty profitable business with that as a basis. Don't think these owners can? These guys are the ones that own car sale businesses. As the saying goes about used car salesmen.... you get the point.

Despite what the league says, I don't think all the cards are on the table.

We need:
1. Profit sharing
2. A stiffer luxury tax (such as calculating the tax as being the # of millions over the tax threshold times itself. So $1M over is $1M in tax. $5M over is $25M in tax. $10M over is $100M in tax. $20M over is $400M in tax and so on. If the Lakers, Mavs, etc can afford that, then the teams who can't won't mind because they'll still be swimming in their share of the divided up Luxury Tax $$$.
3. A lower max salary per player
4. Get rid of the mid-level exception... actually with #2 above, who cares?
5. Maximum of 2 years guaranteed at any time on a contract (This will in the future quickly free up most teams from bad contracts like RJ's). You can still have longer contract length, but the guaranteed portions are rolled out as the contract matures with the team able to "opt-out" of any unguaranteed portion at any time.
6. Allow teams to designate 3 players as "franchise players" so that they can keep top talent. So long as the teams can pay these players max contracts, the players must stay with the team.

[ducks]

the owners want 10 years
tv deals run out in 5
could they not work out something for the new % with the new tv deals?
or could the players have the option of lockout in 5 years when tv runs outs
or could they extend the tv deals now

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Required reading over the summer? Thanks but no thanks High School English Teecharbear.

[Maddog]

Note the teams that have profited by intentionally sucking. The teams that really get hit are the ones that try to compete (i.e. - spend money on players) without being in a big media market.

This graph alone is enough to see why the big market teams don't want anything to change.

That's to me the biggest problem.
The Spurs can turn a modest profit by being under the cap and receiving payment form those under it.

09/10 the Spurs payed the following luxury tax
Spurs 10,160,736
Lakers 21,421,066
Despite this the Lakers turn a huge profit the Spurs lose money.
Even if they had not gone after RJ and stayed under the cap they would still
have have significantly lower profit margin

[ElNono]

If everything is so transparent, as the league likes to say, then release the numbers publicly, so everyone, including Forbes, can scrutinize them.

Once the numbers are out, it should be fairly simple to tell whether they're trying to con the players or not.

[tlongII]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263566_10150243675911137_20214931136_7366574_39126 89_n.jpg

[fyatuk]

This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.

I don't know about baseball, but with the NFL both numbers are accurate. Players receive 57% (or whatever it is) of revenue described by a formula that gives the owners an expense credit and doesn't count certain things. It basically came out to 48% of total revenue the last few years.

Or at least, that's how I understand it.

[Spur_Fanatic]

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

This.

[baseline bum]

The NBA financials remind me of how Hollywood does their financials. Thus Harry Potter films which gross billions of $$$ actually lose money.

Yeah right.

Billions in revenue for television. Much more for advertisers like Nike, Coca Cola, etc ad nauseum? Luxury boxes going up like crazy and most cities pay for the arenas which is the 2nd biggest cost (next to salaries).

I could run a pretty profitable business with that as a basis. Don't think these owners can? These guys are the ones that own car sale businesses. As the saying goes about used car salesmen.... you get the point.

Despite what the league says, I don't think all the cards are on the table.

We need:
1. Profit sharing
2. A stiffer luxury tax (such as calculating the tax as being the # of millions over the tax threshold times itself. So $1M over is $1M in tax. $5M over is $25M in tax. $10M over is $100M in tax. $20M over is $400M in tax and so on. If the Lakers, Mavs, etc can afford that, then the teams who can't won't mind because they'll still be swimming in their share of the divided up Luxury Tax $$$.
3. A lower max salary per player
4. Get rid of the mid-level exception... actually with #2 above, who cares?
5. Maximum of 2 years guaranteed at any time on a contract (This will in the future quickly free up most teams from bad contracts like RJ's). You can still have longer contract length, but the guaranteed portions are rolled out as the contract matures with the team able to "opt-out" of any unguaranteed portion at any time.
6. Allow teams to designate 3 players as "franchise players" so that they can keep top talent. So long as the teams can pay these players max contracts, the players must stay with the team.

#6 is ridiculous. If you're Blake Griffin and you get chosen by the Clippers, not only are you guaranteed below market value your first 4 years, but now you can't leave that worthless franchise that cares much more about getting luxury tax subsidies than winning? Franchise player tags are bullshit. 4 year indentured servitude is bad enough already.

[cantthinkofanything]

Here's my idea.

Everyone gets $1,000,000 per year and $500,000 put into some kind of retirement account or deferred annuity. So if you play one year and god forbid you get injured, you still made plenty of money for a year's work. Quit buying cars, houses, and jewelry.
Then the NBA will partner with the U.S. to bomb any countries that pay more than this.
I haven't hammered out all the details yet.

[ShoogarBear]

I was reading somewhere that the two lockouts are totally different. The NFL is sharing 70% of ALL revenues. With the NBA, the figure is around 25-30%. They need to get their own house in order before they ask for give backs more than the players have already offered, about $100,000,000 a year, last I heard.

This is the key. In the NFL, the Cowboys and Giants doubtlessly make more than the Chiefs and the Jaguars, but not ridiculously more. (The Jags might be the one team capable of losing money.) I would love to see a graph comparable to the one above for the NFL.

As for the Forbes numbers, it's interesting how only the NBA is howling about how inaccurate they are. Baseball, football, and hockey don't seem to have a problem with them.


Required reading over the summer? Thanks but no thanks High School English Teecharbear.

Going to wait for the Chuck's Notes version?

[Bruno]

The whole small market/big market talk has very few to do with why there is a lockout. It's all about how the money is split between players and owners.

If the NBA want to have a more fair league, they can easily do it. For example, they can split half of the money generated by teams through local TV deals, tickets, merchandising, sponsorship... equally between the 30 teams. They can also put a hard cap at a very high level (like $80M).

Something to wonder is: Is it really good for the NBA to have a more fair league?
For example, the British soccer league is damn unfair with some teams heads and shoulders above others and it's generate tons of money.

Talking about the need of a new CBA to help small market is just PR BS from Stern and Co. That's why they don't want to talk about revenue sharing while negotiating the new CBA.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263566_10150243675911137_20214931136_7366574_39126 89_n.jpg

Well you gotta hold on to something, now, tlong :lol
Too funny

[bluebellmaniac]

#6 is ridiculous. If you're Blake Griffin and you get chosen by the Clippers, not only are you guaranteed below market value your first 4 years, but now you can't leave that worthless franchise that cares much more about getting luxury tax subsidies than winning? Franchise player tags are bullshit. 4 year indentured servitude is bad enough already.

The rookie scale was agreed to by the players under the last CBA. So they are to blame for that. Not really sure I'd call the amount they are making "indentured servitude".

Sounds like you want something like:

#7 A higher rookie scale given that only 2 years at any time would be guaranteed.

All the items I put out are intended to make the teams more competitive (despite some horrible GMs out there) and profitable league wide. While it may look like a lot of restrictions on salaries, etc, you ultimately have to look at the % that is being given to the players of the gross income. I think that number needs to be much higher than what the owners are saying they need.

[baseline bum]

The rookie scale was agreed to by the players under the last CBA. So they are to blame for that. Not really sure I'd call the amount they are making "indentured servitude".


It's not even close to what Griffin would get on the market.

You're proposing an "either love your team or don't play" solution. That's crazy. If I'm Griffin I'm not throwing away my career in LA for a cheap owner. Of course Sterling will pay him the max deal since:
1. max deals are capped way below market value, especially for players with less than 10 years experience
2. Griffin can singlehandedly put fans in the stands

And then Griffin will never win a title when Sterling decides to let Gordon, Jordan, Kaman, Bledsoe, and Aminu all walk. Why does that cocksucker Sterling get to bind a hall of fame talent into being a guaranteed meal ticket for him?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh

The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.

This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.

http://bizofbasketball.com/images/NBAProfitsandLosses800x541.jpg


I find that Houston Rockets number hard to believe

[bluebellmaniac]

It's not even close to what Griffin would get on the market.

True. But true for lots of the top talent. Again that's what the players agreed to. So it's not like "the man" is sticking it to the players. It was a bilateral agreement.


You're proposing an "either love your team or don't play" solution. That's crazy.

I didn't mention anything about love. But you're right, it'd be nicer if the top talent wanted to play for a team. And of course they will play, we're talking max contract. NFL has it, NBA needs it. I proposed 3 players so that small markets can compete... which assumes revenue sharing.



If I'm Griffin I'm not throwing away my career in LA for a cheap owner. Of course Sterling will pay him the max deal since:
1. max deals are capped way below market value, especially for players with less than 10 years experience
2. Griffin can singlehandedly put fans in the stands

And then Griffin will never win a title when Sterling decides to let Gordon, Jordan, Kaman, Bledsoe, and Aminu all walk. Why does that cocksucker Sterling get to bind a hall of fame talent into being a guaranteed meal ticket for him?

A lot of players don't ever win titles. Gervin never won a title. Stockton and Malone never won a title. But yeah, Griffin probably would be a franchise player and he'd have to play for the Clips... at a max contract. Hard to feel sorry for someone playing for a max contract though. He could of course make some noise through his agent and make it known he wants to win a title and that the FO needs to get some support around him.

The minimum team salary could be tightened up, so that the Sterlings of the NBA have less incentive to just throw in the towel after preseason. As for the reason, it's to make more teams competitive. If it makes all the teams mediocre, then there are too many teams. Contract a couple or four teams. Also, crappy GMs who know nothing about team chemistry or building a quality team will suffer while teams like the Spurs will dominate.

I just hate seeing crappy Owners and GMs overcome their lack of knowledge by throwing $$$ at players. <*cough cough Cuban cough cough*>

[Spurminator]

I find that Houston Rockets number hard to believe

I wonder if the Rockets have lucrative broadcast deals with Chinese networks...

[baseline bum]

True. But true for lots of the top talent. Again that's what the players agreed to. So it's not like "the man" is sticking it to the players. It was a bilateral agreement.


College players never agreed to it. The NBA veterans looking to cover their own asses sold out the rookies.



A lot of players don't ever win titles. Gervin never won a title. Stockton and Malone never won a title. But yeah, Griffin probably would be a franchise player and he'd have to play for the Clips... at a max contract. Hard to feel sorry for someone playing for a max contract though. He could of course make some noise through his agent and make it known he wants to win a title and that the FO needs to get some support around him.


So he's prevented from making what he's worth. So if he can't play for money, then he plays for legacy. Except his legacy is ruined by playing for an owner that doesn't care in the slightest about putting out a winner. And Griffin can make noise to the front office? Who cares? Why is Sterling listening? The only way Griffin can leave the team is by retiring in your scenario. The ability for a star player to walk is the only power he has to make his team get other good players. Don't you remember Tim Duncan signing a 3 year contract (instead of 7) in 2000 to make sure the Spurs put talent around him?



The minimum team salary could be tightened up, so that the Sterlings of the NBA have less incentive to just throw in the towel after preseason. As for the reason, it's to make more teams competitive. If it makes all the teams mediocre, then there are too many teams. Contract a couple or four teams. Also, crappy GMs who know nothing about team chemistry or building a quality team will suffer while teams like the Spurs will dominate.


An increase in the minimum salary isn't going to stop Sterling. Unless you make the minimum half the maximum or something ridiculous like that.

[Splits]

Matthew Yglesias has this right. The owners are playing you for fools. First of all, year-on-year P/L is a single measurement. What about the value of the franchise? Secondly, they can play with the numbers to make it look like they are "losing" money. Third, who says the owners are supposed to make money? They're living a dream life if they have the money to buy a $300+ million franchise. Oh, the horror of having to run an NBA team. Tell you what, give me your fucking team and I'll absorb the losses.

Anyone who sides with the owners in this debate are fools.

http://tinyurl.com/43txfl9


Almost All NBA Team Owners Have Made Profitable Investments (http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/07/01/259378/almost-all-nba-team-owners-have-made-profitable-investments/)

By Matthew Yglesias (http://thinkprogress.org/author/myglesias/) on Jul 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Michael Wilbon’s curtain raiser on the NBA lockout (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon-110630) repeats the sin of looking at the fiscal state of sports-related firms with reference to their annual cash flow:
The NBA, meanwhile, has teams losing real money. The league says 22 of 30 are operating in the negative; the players association would surely say it’s fewer than that. Either way, it’s reasonable — if not downright inescapable — to conclude there are NBA teams awash in red ink.
Normally when we talk about firm performance we make at least some reference to share prices or other measures of equity value. This is especially true when we’re talking about owners who are, by definition, the people who own the equity. Microsoft is considerably more profitable than Twitter, but someone who bought a large stake in Twitter four years ago is in much better shape than someone who spent an equivalent sum buying a stake in Microsoft. I would say that this is especially the case when it comes to something like these sports teams since the accounting profit or loss can be easily manipulated. For example, the Washington Wizards are owned by the same corporate entity that owns the Verizon Center in which they play. By shifting around the Wizards’ rent payments to the arena you can manipulate the team’s cost structure in arbitrary ways. Similarly, if I owned a profitable team and wanted to make the profits go away I might hire myself and my friends at high salaries. None of this speaks to the actual value of owning the firm. What’s more, a sports team isn’t like a dry cleaning business. Owning and managing a basketball team would be fun. If Ted Leonsis offered to gift me the Wizards with the proviso that the team loses $10,000 a year that would come out of my pocket, I’d leap at the opportunity. Indeed, the number of people who would like to own an NBA franchise far exceeds the number of NBA franchises available. Which is why WR Hambrecht’s comprehensive analysis (PDF (http://www.wrhambrecht.com/pdf/2011_Sports_Market_Report_UPDATE.pdf)) of the financial stake of pro sports teams in the United States confirms the obvious point that NBA teams have a large and positive equity value:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/NBA-franchise-1.jpg

When you think about it, the remarkable thing about pro sports is that it’s possible to make any money at all owning teams. If someone put the New York Knicks up for auction under the condition that any profits the team makes will be annually stacked up in Madison Square Park (former home of the Garden!) and lit on fire, I would expect to see a large number of bids by consortia of wealthy NYC-area basketball fans. Under the circumstances, it’s interesting that in recent years the vast majority of NBA owners have actually been making profitable capital investments:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/image001.png

It’s particularly worth noting that several of the teams who’ve lost the most franchise value have been fairly catastrophically mismanaged (I’m looking at you Minnesota), which is hardly the NBAPA’s fault. All things considered, the vast majority of the owners have nothing to complain about in terms of their financial fortunes over the past few years (years that have been unkind to the finances of many Americans!) and among the minority who may have “lost money” in some real sense, most primarily have themselves to blame and all are in possession of valuable financial assets. Even the lowly Memphis Grizzlies are estimated to be worth $266 million.

[UPDATE] Here’s a very useful post from Deadspin (http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss) about how profits can turn into losses via the magic of accounting. There’s not even anything particularly dishonest about this. There’s a reason that accounting is a profession. You can’t just look at a firm in terms of naive cash flow, but once you go beyond that deciding what is and isn’t profitable gets complicated. The question “how much would I have to pay to take this team off your hands,” by contrast, admits of a fairly unambiguous interpretation.

[GSH]

The whole small market/big market talk has very few to do with why there is a lockout. It's all about how the money is split between players and owners.

If the NBA want to have a more fair league, they can easily do it. For example, they can split half of the money generated by teams through local TV deals, tickets, merchandising, sponsorship... equally between the 30 teams.
? Really? You can't have it both ways.




Bruno, you know about the game. But the business side... not so much. And in case you didn't notice, you even contradicted yourself when you say that they can solve the problem by splitting half the money generated by TV, etc. equally between the 30 teams. What you're saying is that the problem is the split between the owners themselves - not the split between the owners and the players. And that's exactly right. The talking point is the split between the owners and the players... but the real issue is the split between owners.

The problem with your solution is that the big market teams don't want to split their revenues with the smaller-income teams. And those teams carry much more weight in the negotiations, precisely because of who they are. Soooo... the money needed to make the small market teams profitable has to come from somewhere else. It's EXACTLY a big market/small market issue.

And on the other side, who do you think is drawing the bright line around 5-6 year contracts, max salaries, franchise designations, etc.? Do you think it's the average players? Of course not - it's the superstar players who stand to cash in. Some of those points could be negotiable with the majority of the players, which could help end the lockout. But there are a few players at the top who will make sure that won't happen. It's the exact same situation as the one among the owners. And if you don't see that, it's because you don't want to.

To give some perspective, the Lakers had 3 players who accounted for 66% of their payroll. (Call it an average of 22% of payroll each, to make things easy.) That means that 11 other players shared the remaining 33% of their payroll - an average of 3% each. Do you think those other 11 guys really give a shit about whether Kobe might get a "franchise" designation? Do you really believe they would give up next season, and a year's salary, to protect his fat contract? Not a fucking chance. But Kobe has more leverage in the discussions than all of those guys put together.

The talking points are one thing. But the sticking points are all about big market/small market and superstar/average players. And it's almost the EXACT same split in each group. 80% of the owners, and 80% of the players could get together and hammer out an agreement. But the 20% in both camps aren't about to give up their fat shares of the pies.

BTW Bruno - since you're such a big fan of redistribution, and want the big owners to give up part of their profits to the smaller owners. Why aren't you also suggesting that the superstar players should be giving up a share of their salaries and endorsements to their lower-paid union brothers? After all - if it is unfair for some owners to make more money because they happen to be in a bigger market, isn't it also unfair that some players make more because they happen to play in a bigger market?

[mathbzh]

Another good article at this link: http://goo.gl/MP5jh

The best part of the article is the figure below (also for 09-10), emphasizing the disparity among teams. Notice that there's very little dependence on how well the quality of team play or management: the Knicks are a guaranteed lock to make money no matter how badly they are run. No way can a small-market compete with that financially.

This guy has some significantly different numbers than the first article (he claims player salaries in the NFL and baseball are 48% of revenue, while the first article has them around 55-60%.

http://bizofbasketball.com/images/NBAProfitsandLosses800x541.jpg

One thing bother me I don't know if the league really lose money.
But if you look at Dallas figures, it illustrate a huge bias in the numbers interpretation.
With the Mavs, Cuban wanted to buy a title not to make profit. How much an NBA title worth?

Orlando Magic? Owner Richard Devos. Net Worth $4.3 billion (Forbes)
Play the NBA finals in 2009.

New Jersey Net: Owner Prokhorov. Net Worth $13.4 billion (Forbes)
Made it clear he wants to build a team to contend.

With a hard cap, would all these guy still drop money in NBA teams?
They would have much less leverage on their team result and no guarantee to achieve anything. What would be the impact on the teams worth?

I don't know much about business in the NBA so I would be glad if someone can enlighten me.

[ShoogarBear]

BTW Bruno - since you're such a big fan of redistribution, and want the big owners to give up part of their profits to the smaller owners. Why aren't you also suggesting that the superstar players should be giving up a share of their salaries and endorsements to their lower-paid union brothers? After all - if it is unfair for some owners to make more money because they happen to be in a bigger market, isn't it also unfair that some players make more because they happen to play in a bigger market?

I already replied to this. THE PLAYERS ALREADY DID THIS IN 1999.

[TJastal]

It's not even close to what Griffin would get on the market.

You're proposing an "either love your team or don't play" solution. That's crazy. If I'm Griffin I'm not throwing away my career in LA for a cheap owner. Of course Sterling will pay him the max deal since:
1. max deals are capped way below market value, especially for players with less than 10 years experience
2. Griffin can singlehandedly put fans in the stands

And then Griffin will never win a title when Sterling decides to let Gordon, Jordan, Kaman, Bledsoe, and Aminu all walk. Why does that cocksucker Sterling get to bind a hall of fame talent into being a guaranteed meal ticket for him?

Those cocksucker owners.

You know, screw the whole draft. They should just let Griffin pick his own damn team.

[ducks]

I guarantee if griffin picked his team
he would not pick hill to be his point guard

[tlongII]

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/263943_10150244608361137_20214931136_7374673_11404 37_n.jpg

[baseline bum]

Those cocksucker owners.

You know, screw the whole draft. They should just let Griffin pick his own damn team.

Strawman from a dipshit. I called Sterling a cocksucker owner.

[GSH]

I already replied to this. THE PLAYERS ALREADY DID THIS IN 1999.



You obviously have strong feelings about this, Shoog, because that's the most ignorant thing I've ever read from you. Show me 1 bit of evidence that any player ever shared his endorsement money with any other player. (Not donations to something like Mutombo's charity. You know what I mean.)

The point was that Bruno wants the big market owners to give part of their outsized profits to the owners of small market teams. Why shouldn't the same apply to the players? We all know that players earn MUCH more money in endorsements when they play in big markets vs. small markets. I think they should be forced into revenue sharing deals, just like the owners.

The logic for both is exactly the same. You will get pissed off about it because you obviously feel like all owners are scum, and all players are somehow "good".

And, no. Whatever spin you want to put on 1999, it had nothing to do with equalizing the inequities between big and small market salaries. I'm just intrigued with people who are willing to casually take money from one owner to give to others - but can't even think about taking money from one player to give to others. They obviously don't believe that the people responsible for the structure of the league contribute anything of value. And that says it's about ideology, and not facts and logic.

[baseline bum]

http://i55.tinypic.com/ir3z3a.gif

[ShoogarBear]

http://i55.tinypic.com/ir3z3a.gif

:lmao

ENDORSEMENT MONEY????

ENDORSEMENT MONEY????????????????????????????????????

And I'm the ignorant one, huh? It's obvious why you didn't answer the first time, if that's your argument.

The players have done infinitely more than the owners have to level the money from the top earners to the middle earners. (Of course, that's not saying much because the owners have done absolutely nothing.)

Since you seem to be allergic to facts, here're some more:

In 2000, Tim Duncan earned $3.9 million in the last year of his first contract. Shaquille O'Neal earned $17.1 million that same year.

Without the new CBA and player salary, what would be a reasonable guess as to what Tim Duncan would have gotten with his new contract? Answer: whatever Shaq earned.

Instead, in 2001 Duncan earned $9.6 million, while Shaq got $19.2 million.

So who do you think got Duncan's other $9.6 million? Answer: someone not at the top.

[benefactor]

http://i55.tinypic.com/ir3z3a.gif
:lol

[GSH]

:lmao

ENDORSEMENT MONEY????

ENDORSEMENT MONEY????????????????????????????????????

And I'm the ignorant one, huh? It's obvious why you didn't answer the first time, if that's your argument.

The players have done infinitely more than the owners have to level the money from the top earners to the middle earners. (Of course, that's not saying much because the owners have done absolutely nothing.)



No, Shoog, you aren't ignorant. That's why it surprised me. (And if you read my original post, it says "endorsement money". You just chose to ignore that part, and change the subject.) Yes. Tim left money on the table to give the Spurs room to get some supporting players. But you know that's the exception and not the rule in the NBA. Tim is an exceptional player, and the Spurs are an exceptional franchise. It's why we're both fans.

Try and settle down for a second, and listen to what I'm saying, instead of just reacting. I've said in virtually every thread that one of the biggest roadblocks is that the big market owners are making a windfall, and don't want any kind of meaningful revenue sharing. Check my posts, and you'll see that's true.

My beef is people who only see things one way: the big, bad, rich owners are 100% evil, and the players are 100% good. And the owners (and the league) provide virtually nothing of value. That's baby food.

I'll repeat the point once again. It intrigues me how some people are so casual about big market owners giving up part of their money to give to other owners. Money that they receive simply because they happen to be in a big media market. BUT... there are a lot of players who also receive incredible millions of dollars simply because they are in a big media market. Nobody ever even considers the possibility of having THEM share their windfall profits.

Why are (some) peoples' expectations for rich owners so different than for rich players? They say that it is the players that make the league, and that the owners don't want to give them their share. But LeBron earns $30 million per year on endorsements alone. Don't the same players contribute to his success? Could LeBron be great without them?

The NBA's total revenues are just shy of $4 billion. Nike's yearly revenues are over $19 billion. Maybe Nike should be required to put some of their profits into a pool for all the players? After all, they owe a lot of their success to the same players that the NBA owners are supposedly exploiting.

When you hear those things (the players or Nike sharing their profits), you immediately think they are silly. But do you think maybe the big market owners feel the same way about giving away money directly off their bottom line profits? I expect they feel like that money belongs to them... just like the players do, and just like Nike does. And just like YOU would if it was your money.

The real point is, it's not that simple and it's not that one-sided. And the more money at stake, the harder people try to hang onto it. It's human nature. And it's the reason the negotiations are going slowly.

[ShoogarBear]

No, Shoog, you aren't ignorant. That's why it surprised me. (And if you read my original post, it says "endorsement money". You just chose to ignore that part, and change the subject.)

Uh, wrong. Here is your original post, in its entirely. You talk only about contracts and salaries. Endorsements were at first a single word in one post, and now all of a sudden they are the major feature of your argument, because the argument about salaries was going nowhere.


Some of what the article says is correct, and some of it is bullshit. Either based on conjecture, or simply intentionally misleading. Typical of the NY Times. It does underscore one point that is absolutely true, but it only tells half of the story. The major roadblocks in the process now are 100% due to the fact that the league is controlled by the big market teams AND the superstar players.

The big market teams are making a killing. And they have no intention of sharing. They want a solution that will make the smaller teams more profitable, while making them (the big market teams) even more ridiculously profitable than they already are. They don't want to talk about any solution that has them sharing with small market teams. And the problem is, they have more leverage in the discussions.

But what the article doesn't mention is that the superstar players also have different interests than the second-tier players, which is having a big impact on the part of the negotiations involving contracts. And, once again, it's the players at the top who have all the leverage.

The article really pisses me off, though, when it talks about 17 of 30 NBA teams losing money like that is no big deal. And comparing that to baseball at a time when almost one-third of those teams were losing money. The difference is so stark, it's stupid to even think about comparing the two situations. I don't think the reporter is that stupid - they're being intentionally misleading. Which, to me, says they have an agenda. I don't have much patience for reporters with agendas.

You don't have to be a reporter to figure out that 17 of 30 teams are losing money, 6-7 teams are doing all right, and another 6-7 are making a ridiculous shitload of money. And you don't have to be a reporter to figure out that the players' salaries are similarly top-loaded. Any solution that doesn't address those problems is flawed before it ever gets started. But the people with the biggest sticks don't want things any other way.


Yes. Tim left money on the table to give the Spurs room to get some supporting players. But you know that's the exception and not the rule in the NBA. Tim is an exceptional player, and the Spurs are an exceptional franchise. It's why we're both fans.

You really don't get it, do you? Tim didn't leave money on the table in 2001 to get the Spurs supporting players. He left money on the table because he was REQUIRED TO BY THE NEW CBA.


Try and settle down for a second, and listen to what I'm saying, instead of just reacting. I've said in virtually every thread that one of the biggest roadblocks is that the big market owners are making a windfall, and don't want any kind of meaningful revenue sharing. Check my posts, and you'll see that's true.

My beef is people who only see things one way: the big, bad, rich owners are 100% evil, and the players are 100% good. And the owners (and the league) provide virtually nothing of value. That's baby food.

That's now the second time you've said that. Link? Maybe you should respond to what's actually being written instead of imaginary bogeymen.


Why are (some) peoples' expectations for rich owners so different than for rich players? They say that it is the players that make the league, and that the owners don't want to give them their share. But LeBron earns $30 million per year on endorsements alone. Don't the same players contribute to his success? Could LeBron be great without them?

The NBA's total revenues are just shy of $4 billion. Nike's yearly revenues are over $19 billion. Maybe Nike should be required to put some of their profits into a pool for all the players? After all, they owe a lot of their success to the same players that the NBA owners are supposedly exploiting.

When you hear those things (the players or Nike sharing their profits), you immediately think they are silly. But do you think maybe the big market owners feel the same way about giving away money directly off their bottom line profits? I expect they feel like that money belongs to them... just like the players do, and just like Nike does. And just like YOU would if it was your money.

The real point is, it's not that simple and it's not that one-sided. And the more money at stake, the harder people try to hang onto it. It's human nature. And it's the reason the negotiations are going slowly.

Individual endorsements are not covered by the CBA. I can't think of a single precedent where earnings outside of league revenues are included in a collective bargaining agreement. It's probably illegal, and it's certainly illogical. What if a player has a chain of car dealerships, should that be included? Should the NBA players look at earnings that the owners make outside of league revenues, too?

[GSH]

Uh, wrong. Here is your original post, in its entirely.

I was wrong, you are fucking ignorant. As in, "Stupidity is hereditary, but ignorance is voluntary". You pick an unrelated post to tell me what I didn't say? That is just plain fucking ignorant. (Why not go back to my "original post" on all of SpursTalk? Makes about as much sense.) This is the post that originated this part of the discussion - as if facts or logic matter to you:


BTW Bruno - since you're such a big fan of redistribution, and want the big owners to give up part of their profits to the smaller owners. Why aren't you also suggesting that the superstar players should be giving up a share of their salaries and endorsements to their lower-paid union brothers? After all - if it is unfair for some owners to make more money because they happen to be in a bigger market, isn't it also unfair that some players make more because they happen to play in a bigger market?


Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?

I got news for you, dumbshit. The largest chunk of money that makes big market teams so profitable is their local television deals. But those owners bought teams in those large markets for a reason. Now the players association is saying that they (the big market owners) have to take a large chunk of their profits, and give the money to other owners - so that those small market owners can afford to pay their players huge salaries. You can spin it any way you want, but that's what it comes down to. The players' union isn't interested in what's "fair"... they are trying to manufacture a situation where the deck is stacked in their favor.

It's not a hell of a lot different than if you paid a shitload of money for a McDonald's franchise in a great location, and then someone forced you to share your profits with someone who paid half as much for a McDonald's franchise in a shitty location. If it was your money, you would be screaming like a fucking banshee. But since it's the big, bad, rich NBA owners' money, you think nothing of it. And, yes, the "bad" is inferred from your ignorant, one-sided approach to the whole thing.

Personally, I think some further revenue sharing is going to have to happen. Mostly because the players have the owners by the balls, and the money has to come from somewhere. But in exchange for that, the owners need some protection from bad contracts, with players who just don't give a shit anymore. If that happened, the revenue sharing wouldn't have to be quite so punitive. But the players aren't willing to even discuss contracts. Why? Because too many of them like the idea of being set for life, whether they perform or not.

Let's see... teachers and postal workers who get paid to sit in a room, becasue they can't be fired. Auto workers who can't be fired, even when they show up for work drunk. NBA players who can't be fired, even when they fake injuries or show up for camp weighing 300 lbs. What do they have in common? SOMEONE has to pay for their slacker asses. And in the case of the NBA, the players' union says that it's the big market owners, who have lucrative local TV deals, who should pay for those bad contracts.

[baseline bum]

http://andrewwildgust.com/USERIMAGES/Straw-Man.jpg

:cry :cry :cry big bad owners :cry :cry :cry

[Cane]

Even the players admit that the league is losing money but I'm not an accountant. The infamous Bill Simmons answered how he'd tackle the CBA, here's a fitting exerpt:



Issue No. 6: The NBA owners need to figure out revenue sharing before they can figure out a labor deal.

The Players Association keeps pointing out the 22 of 30 NBA teams are losing money because the eight teams that make money aren't sharing it. The owners' response (pretty weak): It doesn't matter how we lose $340 million, just that we're losing $340 million. The players' response to the response (just as weak): It's not $340 million, that's creative accounting! It's really like $90 million! The owners' response to the response to the response: No it's not! My response to the response to the response to the response: Can someone turn on an oven? I want to stick my head inside it.

----

Issue No. 1: The owners lost $340 million last season.
Issue No. 2: The players are currently getting too big of a revenue share.
Issue No. 3: Guaranteed contracts are too long
Issue No. 4 (in 3 parts): NBA superstars should make more money than they do; it should be easier for NBA teams to keep those superstars; and too many nonsuperstars make too much money.
Issue No. 5: Nobody is putting a gun to the owners' heads and telling them to overpay players.
Issue No. 6: The NBA owners need to figure out revenue sharing before they can figure out a labor deal.
Issue No. 7: The NBA owners need to get their house in order before they can figure out a labor deal.

....




Rest @ http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6749669/if-ruled-nba-world

He shared some of my general criticisms of the NBA's system: Non-stars make way too much money for far too long. Struggling teams like New Orleans needs to relocate or get contracted.

I doubt the NBA loses an entire season but I don't think a real hard cap is in store either. Probably just a less-soft cap by taking away exceptions and etc

[benefactor]

I was wrong, you are fucking ignorant. As in, "Stupidity is hereditary, but ignorance is voluntary". You pick an unrelated post to tell me what I didn't say? That is just plain fucking ignorant. (Why not go back to my "original post" on all of SpursTalk? Makes about as much sense.) This is the post that originated this part of the discussion - as if facts or logic matter to you:




Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?

I got news for you, dumbshit. The largest chunk of money that makes big market teams so profitable is their local television deals. But those owners bought teams in those large markets for a reason. Now the players association is saying that they (the big market owners) have to take a large chunk of their profits, and give the money to other owners - so that those small market owners can afford to pay their players huge salaries. You can spin it any way you want, but that's what it comes down to. The players' union isn't interested in what's "fair"... they are trying to manufacture a situation where the deck is stacked in their favor.

It's not a hell of a lot different than if you paid a shitload of money for a McDonald's franchise in a great location, and then someone forced you to share your profits with someone who paid half as much for a McDonald's franchise in a shitty location. If it was your money, you would be screaming like a fucking banshee. But since it's the big, bad, rich NBA owners' money, you think nothing of it. And, yes, the "bad" is inferred from your ignorant, one-sided approach to the whole thing.

Personally, I think some further revenue sharing is going to have to happen. Mostly because the players have the owners by the balls, and the money has to come from somewhere. But in exchange for that, the owners need some protection from bad contracts, with players who just don't give a shit anymore. If that happened, the revenue sharing wouldn't have to be quite so punitive. But the players aren't willing to even discuss contracts. Why? Because too many of them like the idea of being set for life, whether they perform or not.

Let's see... teachers and postal workers who get paid to sit in a room, becasue they can't be fired. Auto workers who can't be fired, even when they show up for work drunk. NBA players who can't be fired, even when they fake injuries or show up for camp weighing 300 lbs. What do they have in common? SOMEONE has to pay for their slacker asses. And in the case of the NBA, the players' union says that it's the big market owners, who have lucrative local TV deals, who should pay for those bad contracts.
http://i628.photobucket.com/albums/uu2/FenrirMX/U%20Mad/1277653794534.jpg

[ShoogarBear]

Internet rules on display:

1. When you can't discuss the facts, resort to name calling.
2. When you can't respond to the argument, put words in the other guys' mouth and argue against that.

What's clear is that you just have some sort of anti-union bug up your ass, and this is just another way to vent your rage.

[ShoogarBear]

Note that the idea of sharing endorsement money is an analogy. (Can you say "analogy"? I knew you could.) And right after I make the analogy, I took the time to explain the analogy. (Note the underlined part.) The non-intentionally-stupid people understand what I'm saying. You make it sound easy to take money from one owner to give to another. But you think it's stupid to even talk about taking money away from one player to give to another. Why is that? Could it be because you think the players deserve to make millions, but the owners don't?


And as has been pointed out eleventy billion times now, the players already took money from the top and redistributed it in the 1999 CBA. Fascinating how you are unable to acknowledge that.

It doesn't mean that the system is currently ideal, but the players have done it, and the owners have not.

[GSH]

Even the players admit that the league is losing money but I'm not an accountant. The infamous Bill Simmons answered how he'd tackle the CBA, here's a fitting exerpt:



Rest @ http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6749669/if-ruled-nba-world



One of the best articles I've read. Too many of them are totally one-sided (like a lot of comments here). This one deals pretty honestly with the bullshit on both sides. It's worth reading the whole thing. I especially liked this from one of the late paragraphs, quoting Bill Simmons: The owners will claim they "fixed" the system, but really, they just swung the numbers more in their favor and kept Stern's "I never lost a franchise while I was in charge" streak alive, which rings just as hollow as Wilt's "I never fouled out of a game!" streak. Will anything actually get fixed?

The bottom line is, both sides are full of shit, and trying to swing the numbers more in their own favors. The fact that the owners are over-stating their losses doesn't mean that the players association is some noble gathering of oppressed workers. Billy Hunter has made it clear that they won't even consider some of the contract issues that absolutely must be solved. He (and some of the players) are no better than Stern (and some of the owners).

Rant all you want - all I've ever said is that there are two sides to this thing. But that suggestion doesn't sit well with some people. It's kind of hard to have a discussion with people who only see one side of things. Come to think of it, that's why there's a lockout to begin with.



And as has been pointed out eleventy billion times now, the players already took money from the top and redistributed it in the 1999 CBA. Fascinating how you are unable to acknowledge that.

It doesn't mean that the system is currently ideal, but the players have done it, and the owners have not.

1999 has absolutely nothing to fucking do with today. And you proved my point - you see things totally one-sided. The players have done everything they have to do, and it's all on the owners. You're a lost cause.