adrenaline98: Am I communist now too?

You claimed to be “pro-business.” Pro-business usually means pro-competition, pro-market. The NBA is a cartel… the opposite of pro-competition. It discourages competition and rewards failure. Again, my logic is weak?

adrenaline98: I said there are a limited number of people.

Whenever franchises come up for sale, I always hear about multiple bidders. That would indicate that there is more demand for franchises than supply.

My logic, though, is that the NBA grew up over decades. Guys like Dr. Jerry Buss, for example, were not ridiculously rich billionaires from the way I’ve heard it. They bought their franchises dirt cheap in a different era, and their fortunes grew with the league’s and the world economy’s really. Does it matter that Jerry Buss owns the Lakers and not some Dr. named Berry Juss? Not really. It does matter than LeBron James is insanely talented at basketball. It does matter than Dwight Howard is 6’11″ and not 5’11″. The D-League makes less money than the NBA not necessarily because it has inferior owners, but because the competition is inferior and the large market are already monopolized.

adrenaline98: NBA owners are losing money and are trying to take more money back from the players in order to profit.

They claim to be losing money. That doesn’t mean they really are. NFL players also claim that NFL owners are under-reporting profits through creative accounting. This isn’t unique.

adrenaline98: Did you just also claim you can raise the capital to fund an NBA team?

A. I said that *if the NBA did not exist* I could start a team.
B. If a team were up for sale I and I could make a compelling argument to investors that I could offer them a good return on investment… why not?

What part of the two comparisons don’t make sense for you? NFL owners are making an assload of money and tryign to rape the players for more. I am against this.

NBA owners are losing money and are trying to take more money back from the players in order to profit. I am for this, unless the accounting is so shady and outrageous. Of course, we can’t see their books.

Did you just also claim you can raise the capital to fund an NBA team? Well, would you?

I am not just pro owner. I believe the revenue sharing should be much higher between ownership. Markets like LA, Chicago, and NY clearly have larger TV contracts, but I also believe it would not be enough to cover the gap that the owners are claiming right now. Am I communist now too?

adrenaline98: And seriously? I wish I had a 10 year salary freeze of $7 million per on average. If the owners are raking in the cash like the NFL, I would be pro players, as I am, in regards to the NFL.

That’s not a valid argument. The market says those players are worth that much. Tell David Stern you’d do his job for free, so he shouldn’t be paid… it doesn’t work that way in a capitalist society. Just cause you would do something you are not qualified to do for less money than someone else, doesn’t mean they should get paid more. If there were LeBron James’ on every playground… his skills would not be so valuable and he’s be paid less.

adrenaline98: There is something simply wrong with paying $100 million to someone who is injured/fat/unmotivated.

How is it any less wrong that Sterling bought an NBA team for like a mill (more with inflation, but still…) and now even though he’s been 90% incompetent and not made much effort to win… it’s worth hundreds of times that even adjusted for inflation?

How is it fair that Dolan inherited a team from daddy to be incompetent with?

I see no moral argument that players are ripping off the owners. The owners are freaking monopoly-holders. The NBA should probably be illegal in a capitalist society. Have a more competitive system where scum like Dolan get beaten out by stronger competitors instead of protecting the status quo.

adrenaline98: Ted, no, you can’t start your own team. Nor can you fly your players around to play against my team. We have no capital. We have no arena.

Speak for your self buddy. Raising capital is part of my job. And if not me then rich non-owners like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could sure as hell start teams.

Many arenas are built with public $ and leased by teams.

My point isn’t so much that I would buy a team today anyway, but that if no NBA existed LeBron and I could start a team against similar teams and eventually an NBA-level league would emerge. Nothing special about the guys who own teams now. Again, though, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, some Saudi Princes… they could do it tomorrow.

adrenaline98: I am pro business. I am not pro owner. I believe both entities are entitled to earning a profit or salary.

? Huh? You are pro monopoly and for repressing the labor…

citizen: I wouldn’t go so far as Ted’s view that the owners are basically irrelevant

I didn’t mean the owners are irrelevant (or really that the league is irrelevant), just who the owners are. If Bill Gates owned the Blazers instead of Paul Allen… who cares? If the ABA had put the NBA out of business and it was called the ABA instead of NBA… who cares?

The owners do have bargaining power because they have monopoly power, but my point is just that without the players there’s no league. People would watch LeBron James whoever owned the team, people would not pay as much to watch a D-League team just because Arison owned it and they played in Miami.

citizen: starting an NBA team/league costs a lot of initial investment in creating the type of infrastructure and culture/knowledge among the public

Yeah, but that’s a process. Anyone could pull it off with some smarts if they were in the right place at the right time. Donald Sterling and James Dolan own NBA teams…

I am pro business. I am not pro owner. I believe both entities are entitled to earning a profit or salary.

And seriously? I wish I had a 10 year salary freeze of $7 million per on average. If the owners are raking in the cash like the NFL, I would be pro players, as I am, in regards to the NFL.

I’m also looking at it from the point of view that certain things the owners are asking for benefit us as a fan also. There is something simply wrong with paying $100 million to someone who is injured/fat/unmotivated. This is what a guaranteed contract is. Even bringing handguns into the locker room doesn’t negate a contract. As I said, I am not looking for non-guaranteed deals. I am looking for partially guaranteed deals, as a fan.

As Ted points out, collective bargaining has taken place for decades in the NBA. We need to examine CHANGES in the owner-player bargaining power balance throughout the years. I see two trends in favor of the players, one short-term and one long-term. First, the short-term: the current economic downswing is actually a bargaining ADVANTAGE for the players since the owners are actually at economic risk of lockout due to the decreased performance of their other businesses. Some owners might be losing money now, but they would lose even more money in a lockout. Second, the long-term: there is more global labor mobility for players than ever before. Other than the ABA period, there has never really been an alternative for players. Now, the global popularity for the sport means that even middling NBA players can probably ride out the lockout by playing in Europe or even China à la Marbury (haha) and make a comfortable salary until an agreement is reached.

Again, it is CHANGES in the balance of bargaining power that matter when we talk about the CBA, not assumptions made in a temporal vacuum.