NBA Agrees to a New $22.5 Billion TV Deal

[cd021]

"
ESPN and TNT retained the rights to show NBA games for the next nine years in a new deal announced Monday.

The deal takes effect starting with the 2016-17 season and increases ESPN's television, digital, highlights, data, audio and international NBA rights. Games will continue to air on ESPN and TNT through the 2024-25 season. The announcement was made by NBA commissioner Adam Silver and ESPN president John Skipper.


ABC will remain the exclusive network for the NBA Finals and both ESPN and ABC will combine for up to 44 postseason games, including the conference finals. ESPN will continue to air the draft, draft combine and draft lottery."


D-League and Summer league will be on national tv and a awards show at the end of the season on TNT

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11652297/nba-extends-television-deals-espn-tnt

519108813711245312

That would allow for players like Lebron could get $30 per, $150 million over 5 years

[baseline bum]

LINK: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11652297/nba-extends-television-deals-espn-tnt (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11652297/nba-extends-television-deals-espn-tnt)

[DPG21920]

Should be great for the NBA. More access, more nationally televised games. More teams spending money & keeping players. Only big concern is the upcoming CBA. Owners worked the players over pretty good last time with a lot of grandstanding on "losing money". Can't do that now.

[Old School 44]

Although ABC/ESPN has gotten better, it would have been nice if TNT carried the Finals.

[Seventyniner]

Since the deal is known now, hopefully the league increaes the cap next summer beyond what it otherwise would have been so that the jump from 2015 to 2016 isn't so big.

That or introduce a rolling average rule so that the cap is based on an average of the previous 3 to 5 years of BRI. This also means the cap wouldn't crash if somehow a new TV deal down the road is much smaller than anticipated.

[boutons_deux]

Expect the owners to throw a few crumbs into the CBA, but basically the players will get screwed.

[baseline bum]

Although ABC/ESPN has gotten better, it would have been nice if TNT carried the Finals.

No it wouldn't have. Reggie Miller doing color? Shaq's retarded ass at halftime? TNT sucks now. ABC is so much better even with Mark Jackson back.

[Baam]

Mark Jackson is clearly a Boris fan so he's okay in my book tbh. Dont even mind the "hand down man down" :lol.

[monkeypunk]

Anyone know if they are ending the blackout restrictions as part of the deal?

[Old School 44]

No it wouldn't have. Reggie Miller doing color? Shaq's retarded ass at halftime? TNT sucks now. ABC is so much better even with Mark Jackson back.

I prefer Albert's "Yes" to Breen's "Bang", but I get what you mean about Miller. I like JVG, but don't care at all for Jackson.
Shaq says some dumb things at times, but TNT studio team of Ernie/Shaq/Kenny/Charles is still much better than Sage/Jalen/Bill/Doug.

[Mal]

That would allow for players like Lebron could get $30 per, $150 million over 5 years

LeBron is worth it, but Melo, Harden, Howard, Kobe arent

[thiste]

519108813711245312

Great news for Timmy! Yes I'm serious.

[Silver&Black]

:lol Kirby is going to say he's "underpaid" now

[ElNono]

QTNsbLyMAmk

[Ditty]

Miss the NBA on NBC days :cry

[Shifty]

Miss the NBA on NBC days :cry
I loved those sunday tripleheaders after football season was over.

[boutons_deux]

Anyone know if they are ending the blackout restrictions as part of the deal?

FCC votes to end sports blackout rule over NFL's objection
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sports-blackout-fcc-nfl-20140930-story.html

[TheyCallMePro]

This shouldn't change the next CBA much in favor of the players considering half the NBA arena's resemble graveyards during the regular season.

[exstatic]

This shouldn't change the next CBA much in favor of the players considering half the NBA arena's resemble graveyards during the regular season.

That's academic. With their TV deal, the NBA could survive zero attendance.

[monkeypunk]

FCC votes to end sports blackout rule over NFL's objection
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sports-blackout-fcc-nfl-20140930-story.html


Saw that (thanks) but was more wondering when the blackout would be lifted. Would be nice to stream games here in Austin rather than pretending to be Indian (dot not feather).

[illusioNtEk]

NBC Sports sucks as sports coverage with other sports..... Glad nbc will stay out as they have the dumbest announcers

[ElNono]

Det Kawhi pricetag gonna look pretty different now

[Obstructed_View]

LeBron is worth it, but Melo, Harden, Howard, Kobe arent

Agreed. Some of those non-franchise guys were max players simply because the max was so low. Durant will get the max, but he's probably not worth it either. It will inch up with the bad contracts the owners insist on signing undeserving players to until you have 30 guys making that kind of money.

[Obstructed_View]

Miss the NBA on NBC days :cry

Since they've got the cash to throw around, Disney should buy the John Tesh song from NBC.

[baseline bum]

Agreed. Some of those non-franchise guys were max players simply because the max was so low. Durant will get the max, but he's probably not worth it either. It will inch up with the bad contracts the owners insist on signing undeserving players to until you have 30 guys making that kind of money.

32 PPG, 7.4 REB, 5.5 AST on 50% shooting with 39% from the three is pretty easily worth $26 million. He didn't let his team down in the WCF; he got beaten by the best team since possibly the 08 Celtics.

[baseline bum]

Miss the NBA on NBC days :cry

I miss the tripleheaders in the regular season and quadrupleheaders in the playoffs and I miss Walton, but I sure don't miss Snapper Jones, Tom Hammonds, Bob Costas, Doug Collins, Isiah Thomas, and that John Tesh intro.

[Dex]

32 PPG, 7.4 REB, 5.5 AST on 50% shooting with 39% from the three is pretty easily worth $26 million. He didn't let his team down in the WCF; he got beaten by the best team since possibly the 08 Celtics.

And by his sidekick, to be honest.

I know Westbrook had an amazing series, as well, but it was low efficiency and, ultimately, he succumbed to his flopping, chucking ways in Game 6.

More importantly, look at those numbers from Durant. Then consider he is typically not the one with the ball in his hands in the clutch due to Chuckbrook's propensity to TRY to take over games.

Does he do it? Occasionally. But as an opposing fan, I'd much rather watch him try then see the ball go to the reigning MVP.

[scanry]

Agreed. Some of those non-franchise guys were max players simply because the max was so low. Durant will get the max, but he's probably not worth it either. It will inch up with the bad contracts the owners insist on signing undeserving players to until you have 30 guys making that kind of money.

That's a strong assertion. Durant's arguibly the best offensive player we've seen since Michael.

[Venti Quattro]

No NBC? :(

[99 Problems]

Det Kawhi pricetag gonna look pretty different now


Faried just got $60m, so yep we gotta pay KL some nice dollars regardless.

[spurraider21]

so how much can we afford to pay Ayres?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

The league would be really dumb to make a gigantic leap in the salary cap over one or two seasons because some big market team will use that blip to create a super team of stars that no other team would be able to surpass when things eventually settle after the cap raise. It'd also be a huge blow to teams who have carefully looked after their cap space, like the Spurs.

[cd021]

The league would be really dumb to make a gigantic leap in the salary cap over one or two seasons because some big market team will use that blip to create a super team of stars that no other team would be able to surpass when things eventually settle after the cap raise. It'd also be a huge blow to teams who have carefully looked after their cap space, like the Spurs.

Its not the leagues choice what the cap is. Its apart of the CBA. Its tied to total income of the league divided by 30 teams.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Its not the leagues choice what the cap is. Its apart of the CBA. Its tied to total income of the league divided by 30 teams.

True, but there's been talk about mechanisms to control the cap increase, spreading it over X number of seasons for example.

[exstatic]

Faried just got $60m, so yep we gotta pay KL some nice dollars regardless.

Denver is having to walk that back. The extension, as announced, violates the CBA. You CANNOT give a 5 year extension at less than the Maximum salary, which his announced deal was. I doubt they want to MAX him, so that deal will drop to 4 years, and a big chunk of that money, likely 10-12 M will drop right off.

Can you imagine being the fan of a team that has a front office with so little understanding of the CBA?

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Can you imagine being the fan of a team that has a front office with so little understanding of the CBA?

It's so comical it's hardly believable.

[exstatic]

True, but there's been talk about mechanisms to control the cap increase, spreading it over X number of seasons for example.

The players would be stupid to allow that, especially since the owners have been quoted as saying they're going to lock them out again in 2017. Any money they give up in "smoothing" the cap up, they'll likely never see again.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

The players would be stupid to allow that, especially since the owners have been quoted as saying they're going to lock them out again in 2017. Any money they give up in "smoothing" the cap up, they'll likely never see again.

Don't think the players union would even be asked about this, they would only need to structure the actual TV deal in a manner they see fit, i.e. not starting at say 2bn, but at 1 and with higher annual increases or something like that. Players will be fucked again of course, and if there's a 2017 lockout they'll be fucked even more.

[exstatic]

Don't think the players union would even be asked about this, they would only need to structure the actual TV deal in a manner they see fit, i.e. not starting at say 2bn, but at 1 and with higher annual increases or something like that. Players will be fucked again of course, and if there's a 2017 lockout they'll be fucked even more.

It's already structured as increasing from start to finish, and Silver has already hinted about "smoothing" anyway.

[cd021]

True, but there's been talk about mechanisms to control the cap increase, spreading it over X number of seasons for example.

Doubtful. The players are already talking about getting back to the table for negotiations. They have an out of this CBA after next season ( i believe).

i posted an article a couple of months ago about the possibility of expansion that has the added benefit to both sides. Up to 30 more jobs for the players and each team won't have as massive of a cap (instead of BRI divided by 30 it would be divided by 32). That could be something that comes up down the road.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237823

[Captivus]

Teams should start making decision using this new KEY information that will affect caps.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

It's already structured as increasing from start to finish, and Silver has already hinted about "smoothing" anyway.

Obviously it will be increasing over the length of the deal, but I'm not aware of a source showing the exact numbers. The last year of the current TV contract is at around 1bn, the first year of the new TV deal could be 2bn with modest annual raises, or 1.5bn or 1.1bn with higher raises or whatever way they structure it. This is where the huge cap increase could happen if they don't smooth it.


Doubtful. The players are already talking about getting back to the table for negotiations. They have an out of this CBA after next season ( i believe).

i posted an article a couple of months ago about the possibility of expansion that has the added benefit to both sides. Up to 30 more jobs for the players and each team won't have as massive of a cap (instead of BRI divided by 30 it would be divided by 32). That could be something that comes up down the road.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237823

You think the players will lock themselves out? When was the last time this has happened? It's called a lockout for a reason and I wouldn't expect the players union to cause it - only the owners might want to but it's unlikely IMO.


Teams should start making decision using this new KEY information that will affect caps.

A lot of teams already have - Spurs, Suns, LeBron, etc.

[Obstructed_View]

That's a strong assertion. Durant's arguibly the best offensive player we've seen since Michael.

And he used to play defense early in his career. ;)

[Obstructed_View]

32 PPG, 7.4 REB, 5.5 AST on 50% shooting with 39% from the three is pretty easily worth $26 million. He didn't let his team down in the WCF; he got beaten by the best team since possibly the 08 Celtics.

Good points, and you're probably right. If anyone other than Lebron is worth that money, it's KD. The point I was getting at was more that it's been extended so that you don't have guys like Rudy Gay or Rashard Lewis or even Dwight Howard making the max, at least not right away. It's a moving target though. I wasn't trying to debate the merits of Durant, he's just the best non-Lebron max player that came to mind. If there's ANY debate whether or not he's a max player, then it pretty much means guys like Joe Johnson aren't in that stratosphere.

[Chinook]

Something else to note is the unlikely event that Davis may just accept his QO in 2016, because the difference between what he'd make on an extension and what he'd make by signing a new deal after the new money kicks in could be massive. For a player of his caliber, it might make sense to risk injury. The only saving grace for New Orleans is the Rose-max, which has a chance to keep the numbers close.

All this means that 2017 may well be the Summer of the Unibrow. And the Spurs will have a max slot just sittin' around...

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

Not only Davis, but also Beal, Lillard and Drummond from that same draft class would be smart to do it. They'll also earn some pretty penny on their QO, as they're drafted so high. Over $9 mil for Davis, 7-8 for the others. Not a bad gamble to make.

[lefty]

No NBC? :(
Today's shitty NBA doesnt deserve NBC

[cd021]

Obviously it will be increasing over the length of the deal, but I'm not aware of a source showing the exact numbers. The last year of the current TV contract is at around 1bn, the first year of the new TV deal could be 2bn with modest annual raises, or 1.5bn or 1.1bn with higher raises or whatever way they structure it. This is where the huge cap increase could happen if they don't smooth it.



You think the players will lock themselves out? When was the last time this has happened? It's called a lockout for a reason and I wouldn't expect the players union to cause it - only the owners might want to but it's unlikely IMO.



A lot of teams already have - Spurs, Suns, LeBron, etc.

The new deal average $2.66 billion per season. The league could raise the steadily raise the cap in order to prepare teams for the '17-18 season.

It would be a "strike" not a lockout it the players were to opt out the the deal. The players didn't strike last time around, the owners locked them out. I could see both sides be willing to renegotiate the CBA. Players were already warned to prepare for another work stoppage last season by the players union.

They got screwed over in the last CBA. It would be silly to think they wouldn't want to get back to the table A.S.A.P. The owners got the players to drop for 57% in BRI to 50%. If the players still had that split, the players could have been looking at a salary cap of around 100,000,000.

The players would like to have "max salary" caps removed (based on years of experience)I'd imagine the owners would want a hard cap (that was floated around the last CBA, where the cap would be raised significantly but, teams couldn't exceed that figure no matter what). In order to keep big market teams from going towards 100 million without going into the luxury tax.

According to PTR the cap could jump to 88 million in 17-18. Bad teams like Sacramento and Phily would have to reach the minimum salary floor 90% of the salary cap ($79,200,000). Or they would have to divide the difference to the players on roster. So i could see that being changed as well.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

The new deal average $2.66 billion per season. The league could raise the steadily raise the cap in order to prepare teams for the '17-18 season.

Exactly - they'd be crazy if they don't create a mechanism for smoothing.


It would be a "strike" not a lockout it the players were to opt out the the deal. The players didn't strike last time around, the owners locked them out. I could see both sides be willing to renegotiate the CBA. Players were already warned to prepare for another work stoppage last season by the players union.

When was the last time there was a strike in any major sport? 20 years ago? Players are very very unlikely to do that.


They got screwed over in the last CBA. It would be silly to think they wouldn't want to get back to the table A.S.A.P. The owners got the players to drop for 57% in BRI to 50%. If the players still had that split, the players could have been looking at a salary cap of around 100,000,000.

Players got screwed and they'll happily accept the new TV deal without needing to renegotiate as they'll be getting significantly more money as well. If the owners are unwilling to negotiate a change the players will not dare to strike as they'll be taken to the cleaners.


The players would like to have "max salary" caps removed (based on years of experience)I'd imagine the owners would want a hard cap (that was floated around the last CBA, where the cap would be raised significantly but, teams couldn't exceed that figure no matter what). In order to keep big market teams from going towards 100 million without going into the luxury tax.

No they don't. And there's already a hard cap for all practical means and purposes tbh.


According to PTR the cap could jump to 88 million in 17-18. Bad teams like Sacramento and Phily would have to reach the minimum salary floor 90% of the salary cap ($79,200,000). Or they would have to divide the difference to the players on roster. So i could see that being changed as well.

Philly will happily pay the difference to their roster, just as they'll be doing this season.

[spurraider21]

Something else to note is the unlikely event that Davis may just accept his QO in 2016, because the difference between what he'd make on an extension and what he'd make by signing a new deal after the new money kicks in could be massive. For a player of his caliber, it might make sense to risk injury. The only saving grace for New Orleans is the Rose-max, which has a chance to keep the numbers close.

All this means that 2017 may well be the Summer of the Unibrow. And the Spurs will have a max slot just sittin' around...
might not make sense for davis to risk injury considering his already spotty injury history

but hey anything that allows for even a 0.01% higher chance of the spurs landing davis is fine by me :lol

Splitter, Davis, Leonard, and Green would be one of the most monstrous defensive cores in a LONG time

[Chinook]

So as has been said recently, the league is considering structuring their new TV deal in a way that "smooths over" the cap spike set to hit the league soon. It's possible that 2015-2016 will see an artificially increased salary cap. I wonder if the Spurs would be in favor of that. On one hand, it would allow the team to have a max slot even with the new contracts they handed out over the summer. On the other hand, any contract they sign this July would be bigger than it would have been before. Kawhi's contract could be significantly larger (maybe $10 Million more over the life of the deal). When you factor in a second max contract, it starts to add up pretty quickly.

However, if the Spurs do not give Kawhi an extension this fall, then his cap hold for next summer will remain unchanged regardless of whatever contract Leonard is eligible for. So the team would get the benefit without having to deal with the cost from a 2015 cap perspective. That makes it even less likely in my mind that the Spurs should extend Kawhi this year.

[cd021]

Exactly - they'd be crazy if they don't create a mechanism for smoothing.



When was the last time there was a strike in any major sport? 20 years ago? Players are very very unlikely to do that.



Players got screwed and they'll happily accept the new TV deal without needing to renegotiate as they'll be getting significantly more money as well. If the owners are unwilling to negotiate a change the players will not dare to strike as they'll be taken to the cleaners.


No they don't. And there's already a hard cap for all practical means and purposes tbh.



Philly will happily pay the difference to their roster, just as they'll be doing this season.

-Hard cap and a high luxury tax aren't the same thing (it essentially acts as one for the less deep pocketed teams. As i was saying if the cap jumps to $88 million the luxury tax threshold would be north of $100 million. That could give an advantage back to the bigger market/pocket teams like the Lakers, & Nets. They can exceed $100 million in payroll and not have to pay a dime of luxury tax.

[May have been Bill Simmons] The theory that having a hard cap and removing salary restrictions would create greater parity and create a more even playing field for free agents (whomever has the most money to throw at top free agents would potentially have a leg up) The owners at the very least could counter the proposal to remove salary restrictions with having the players to agreed to have a hard cap in place to keep team salaries from exceeding a certain amount.

The players do want the max salaries to be removed.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24739981/report-lebron-james-could-lead-push-for-removal-of-max-contracts

Lebron apparently wants the opportunity to make more something similar to Jordan's 96-97 and 97-98 salary. MJ made $30.1 million (equivalent to $43.8 million today) and 33.1 million (equivalent to $48.4 million today) for two seasons.

Lebron would be eligible for around $30 million per year (around $150,000,000 over the life of the deal) Still far short of that. The max salaries affect more players than just Lebron

0-6 seasons 25% of the cap
7-9 seasons- 30% of the cap
10+ seasons- 35% of the cap

Another issue would be the rookie scale. If the CBA remains intact. #1 picks would only make up to $6 million while the actual cap would be nearly $90 million. The #30th pick would only make around $1 million. The players union would almost certainly want the rookie scale altered to be proportional to the rising cap.

Also the minimum salaries would still be need to be changed as well.

-I mentioned Philly as an example but were talking the difference between $56 million and $79 million. Bad teams would be forced to payout a ridiculous sum to field an awful team.

-There are still some unresolved issues from the previous CBA negotiations. At the very least it would make sense for some negotiations to take place next summer. Silver has been on the record for wanting at least 2 years of college (not a fan of that one, personally). They could finally make a decision of that along with other issues.

[Chinook]

-Hard cap and a high luxury tax aren't the same thing (it essentially acts as one for the less deep pocketed teams. As i was saying if the cap jumps to $88 million the luxury tax threshold would be north of $100 million. That could give an advantage back to the bigger market/pocket teams like the Lakers, & Nets. They can exceed $100 million in payroll and not have to pay a dime of luxury tax.

It doesn't really help any markets. All teams will get $88-100 Million to spend since they're getting their share of the new TV money. If anything, the increase will help small-market teams like the Spurs and Thunder, who would all of the sudden have a ton of potential cash to hand out without having to pay the tax.


[May have been Bill Simmons] The theory that having a hard cap and removing salary restrictions would create greater parity and create a more even playing field for free agents (whomever has the most money to throw at top free agents would potentially have a leg up) The owners at the very least could counter the proposal to remove salary restrictions with having the players to agreed to have a hard cap in place to keep team salaries from exceeding a certain amount.

Main reason why this is a non-starter. Superstars are going to come out of these negotiations looking really bad.


The players do want the max salaries to be removed.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...-max-contracts (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24739981/report-lebron-james-could-lead-push-for-removal-of-max-contracts)

That seems to say that max players want more money. Not surprising at all. Once agents get into this, it'll become clear that there's little support for this among the general populace of players.


Another issue would be the rookie scale. If the CBA remains intact. #1 picks would only make up to $6 million while the actual cap would be nearly $90 million. The #30th pick would only make around $1 million. The players union would almost certainly want the rookie scale altered to be proportional to the rising cap.

Will probably be part of the smoothing process. The MLE is also going to be ridiculously low.


-I mentioned Philly as an example but were talking the difference between $56 million and $79 million. Bad teams would be forced to payout a ridiculous sum to field an awful team.

Not a big deal. They'll be getting a ton of money even though they're not earning it. Plus, if that encourages them to not tank, all the better.


-There are still some unresolved issues from the previous CBA negotiations. At the very least it would make sense for some negotiations to take place next summer. Silver has been on the record for wanting at least 2 years of college (not a fan of that one, personally). They could finally make a decision of that along with other issues.

I simply see no reason why the two sides wouldn't start negotiations this season. As I said before, the league and union will most likely hammer out some things for next summer in order to avoid a huge spike in salaries. We'll see exactly what that ends up being.