The NBAPA has no choice now - they must blink first.
I believe that David Stern and the League now have the upper hand in the labor negotiations with the NBAPL. All the talk on both sides about Hard Caps, Flex Caps, Graduating Luxury Taxes, Designer hand bags with the MLE inside, and "blood issues" are a smokescreen obscuring the real issue. The split of revenues between the Owners and the Players has always been at the crux of this lockout. How to share the League's $4 Billion in revenues is the heart of the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, if there is to be one.
It appears that Stern has convinced the Owners to finally make a move on the BRI issue and have offered a 50/50 split to the players. The League started by asking for a 45% split... While the players offered 54.3%. Way back when, when this lockout first started, Fifty-Fifty seemed like the perfect solution. Each side moving towards the middle, until they get to 50/50 - and we'd have a deal. That is what I have been waiting for. Let's face it, this is what EVERYONE has been waiting for.
A 50/50 split would effectively eliminate 90% of the League's claimed $300 Million losses. There's no agreement yet - but the Union would be crazy not to accept an agreement before Monday; and I'll explain below the jump.
So here we are.... Finally at the end of the long chess game; The Owners offered 50/50 - and the Union said................."No".... uh....what?
Actually they didn't say "No"... The Players asked for another meeting to see if an agreement could be reached before doomsday (Monday). The owners agreed to meet on the condition the players agree to a 50-50 split of basketball-related income. The owners demanded an up-front agreement to the 50-50 split before they would agree to meet. The Players would not to attend a negotiating session under those preset conditions. I'm not sure I disagree - I mean isn't that what the negotiating sessions are for? To negotiate this split? After all, the Union has not even had time to get feedback from the rank and file regarding the Owner's latest proposal.
Now we hear that there is disagreement over the details of the proposed 50-50 split that was offered in the last bargaining session. It appears that the owners actually offered the players a 49% split, increasing to 51% if certain incentives are reached related to the projected growth of the league. The players countered with 51%, increasing to 53%. The owners turned that down. Are the two sides really just 2% apart?
I see why the Union wouldn't agree to preconditions to meet. The 50/50 split is a relatively new concept; at least in the formal negotiations. But we're getting closer and closer to actually losing real games - and that means real losses for players. There are some hard line players (KG, Pierce, D-Wade) calling for the Union to stand firm - but I cannot believe that the rank and file players really want to lose games. The big name players can probably afford to lose some games - but the mid level and lower level players will lose salary, and they are the ones that make up the majority. The Union was right in not accepting preconditions to a meeting - but they should be polling their rank and file to find out where they stand on the split. I believe if they poll the players, an overwhelming majority would accept a 50/50 split.
Larry Coon had a terrific article on ESPN.COM about how much money the players will lose if the first two weeks of the season are canceled.
The players are holding out for an additional $120 million in 2011-12, but holding out costs them $82.4 million per week. They would lose everything they stand to gain this season in less than two weeks. On Monday the league is expected to announce the cancellation of the first two weeks of the season, which will cost the players $164.8 million.
However this turns out - it's getting closer and closer to the point where the Union will have no choice but to cave in, and sign whatever deal is on the table. Let's remember everyone - they're fighting over $120 Million... a relative drop in the $4 Billion NBA revenue bucket. When they are this close, losing games (and losing money) makes very little sense from the Player's perspective.
Let's hope the Union agrees before games are actually canceled.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Brilliant strategy by the owners
Cancelling the meeting takes away the face to face confrontation the players would have had on Monday. Now they only have the media they can vent too.
Its a take it or leave it proposal.
Now the rank and file get to have their voice heard to the NBPA. Finally.
by jmpalomo on Oct 8, 2011 5:24 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 1 recs
You seem a lot more hopefull than some other autheurs I've read...
If this deal goes through the league gets 1 out of 2 things they wanted: they get money but nothing will be done about parity.
The players take a paycut but the get to keep the system that overpays the avarage and below average (remember, rookie deals and max deals are capped off while the owners háve to spend that 50% one way or another) and like Rook said, they make up the majority of NBPA
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
It is getting closer... but the last few inches are always the hardest
The players have rightly picked up on the fact that there is 50-50 and then again there is 50-50… For this deal to work, the owners have to move away from any offer that can in any way be said to start at less than 50%. Right now, as I understand it, they are offering a deal that starts at 49% (with incentives thorugh which it could rise to 51%).
IMO, if the final deal starts at 50%, with clearly defined incentives that would allow the players to get up to 52% of BRI if their performance is such that the league as a whole hits some well defined sales goals, that would probably satisfy the majority of the players.
An annual loss of $120 mil is not insignificant
And this isn’t about numbers now, regardless. You piss someone off by declaring previously-unannounced ultimatums, and they’re going to hit you back. As a fan, I don’t like it, but get ready for the extended lockout. This is not how a party to a negotiation effectively bargains. The league f#@%ed up, and it’s about to pay the price.
By the way - those agents, whom no one was listening to before?
They’ve got a captive audience now. Great work, Mr. Stern.
Except that $120 Million that the Union is fighting to keep...
You know, the difference between the Union’s proposal of 52% and the Owner’s 50% – that 2% of revenue that totals $120 Million? The Players lose MORE THAN THAT when two weeks of games are canceled on Monday… The Players will lose $164.8 Million -WHAM!!!!
That is money they cannot recoup. Gone. Never to be seen again.
If the Union agrees to 50% – they lose $120 Million……. If they don’t agree, and the League cancels the first two weeks of games – they lose $164.8 Million…. It comes down to simple mathematics…. How long before the Union loses ALL the potential gains that 2% would have over the life of a 6-year contract? December…. that’s when the players lose every penny of that 2% – FOR THE REST OF THE NEXT 6-YEARS.
I used to have super powers until my psychiatrist took them away.
But they can recoup some of that by playing overseas
Not all of it obviously, but it isn’t insignificant in this whole ordeal. These players are the best in the world, someone, somewhere is willing to pay them to play basketball. True some players are reluctant to go, but the longer the lockout draws out the more inclined they will be to take their talents elsewhere (particularly mid-tier players who wouldn’t weather the lockout as well as some stars). Obviously it’s not a long-term solution, but it gives the players at least a little leverage in the short term.
not really
Every contract mid-tier takes some undrafted/min contract dude loses. Only limited amount of jobs available, expecially since lot of leagues have foreing player cap of some sort.
Yeah, around 60 going overseas so far
And a lot more are interested. Player movement: Who’s going abroad?
what are the next media deals going to look like?
the league received about 20% per year more when they extended deals with espn/abc/tnt a few years ago….is it assumed the next deal will bring a 20% increase in tv revenue? more? less? What numbers are used when people run their numbers on this?
how about overseas broadcast rights? what would a lost season do to league popularity in China? Do the owners really want to risk that?
You can’t win a negotiation unless you’re willing to say “no.” Will be interesting to see where the players are
Again, it's not entirely about numbers when the league starts issuing ultimatums
Never underestimate the power of David Stern to supremely piss off the players. Rather than comparing parties’ positions in negotiations, we might as well talk about what parties stand to gain or lose from decertification. As I understand it, any caps on salaries, or free agency, etc. would violate federal antitrust laws but-for the CBA – the idea being that, through the CBA, the players consented to restrictions that would otherwise be illegal. This is a huge bargaining piece, and there may be quite a bit more to gain, beyond the parameters of the negotiations that have taken place so far, if the players decertify.
I dunno, I’m not sure the players will cave if the owners are unwilling to go above 50%. Giving up 7 percentage points would be just a huge, huge loss for the players. Not only a loss in dollars, but a loss of self-respect. Giving in would be an acknowledgement that they are the owners’ bitches — and remember, these guys are pro athletes, who are not used to being anyone’s bitches. For that reason, I think the owners would be wise to give up a symbolic extra 1% or 2% — thereby agreeing to a 51% or 52% share to the players — and still come out as huge winners considering the share of income that they’d be getting back.
I seriously believe its a matter of the Commissioner not being able to bring an offer to the owners where some teams WILL lose money
If 50/50 is a true break even point for the small market owners and the players do not want to go there, then why have a meeting.
by jmpalomo on Oct 8, 2011 10:43 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Are the players asking too much?
I’m starting to think the players demands and the demands of certain agents are a little un-
reasonable. They’re trying to rape the owners just to keep salaries on as high a scale in general as possible. I think the owners are seriously trying not to lose money-plain and simple. The players are too stubborn! They’re not giving the Owners…..the OWNERS, enough wiggle room to establish a workable NBA model! You’ve got to have a model to start from that all owners can succeed with. Maybe the owners are not presenting it properly, but if a 50/50 split allows all teams to go through the average season and not lose money, then it’s fair. Anything that does not allow this is dangerous to the future of the league, not just the players and they’re agents.
by Herb Harris on Oct 9, 2011 2:40 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Perfect storm for the owners' negotiating position
The owners are trying to claim this past year was normal, that every year from now on will be just like last year. The players need to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in salary so that the owners can make money under the conditions of the last year.
BS. Last year was extremely atypical:
The economy sucked. I think we all hope that this isn’t the new normal.
Player salaries were oddly distributed in the wake of the summer of LeBron (for example, the Knicks’ payroll was quite modest last year). That impacts the revenue sharing that normally comes from the escrow and luxury tax systems.
We have had a large number of new owners recently. The league is claiming the new owners’ borrowing costs as an expense, which I think is BS, but regardless, those borrowing costs are certainly higher this year than they would be in normal times. In normal times, we won’t have as much owner turnover as we have had recently.
Starting in 2015(?), the next national TV deal is expected to be much, much more lucrative than the current deal.
Given the unusual conditions of this past year, why should the players give up so much? Should the owners be guaranteed modest profits even in the flukiest of bad years (and obscenely huge profits in good ones)? Shouldn’t it be good enough for them to be able to make good, solid profits over the long term? That might include an occasional down year, but they’re all billionaires, so they should be able to live with it.
Besides, they’re owners of an NBA team! These owners are fans, too, right? So that’s a hell of a lot more fun than just owning some random boring business. They should be willing to accept slightly lower profits because of their enjoyment of the game.
How is taking a 4-7% paycut "raping" the owners?
How is the nba not a workable model when revenues have gone up every year for awhile now and really jumped just this last season? Who won’t the owners release the details of the supposed lost money so no one can question the numbers? Everyone agrees SOME teams lose money- but the owners claim 22 of 30 but offer no proof of it.
by DCrez on Oct 9, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Union won't blink
I am thinking the players are sticking with 53% and that’s non negotiable. Stern may have to tell the owners that if they want basketball, they are going to have to accept it. Its Stern who comes out with hard demands and then moves. Hard cap! Okay, maybe not. 46%! Okay, maybe not. Stern keeps rolling back demands. I don’t know why labor would blink. They have been the party of no and so far, its been working for them.I am even thinking 51% may have been a Union ploy thinking, if Stern gets to 51%, the Union will move the goal posts back a little to 53%. That might be the magic number to get the deal done. Stern might know 51% is a trap and before he moves he may have to caucus with the owners first to see who is willing to settle.
I dont think they should take less than 53% under any circumstance unless it's an emergency
deal to save the season that comes with a player opt-out right after the next tv deals are signed. IMHO, they’ll even end up regretting 53% when they see the new TV deal, how much the owners make off it, knowing it is 100% because of them the money is coming in.
NBA players deserve a larger share of the pie than nfl or mlb players, 53% is about even with mlb I think
Future CBAs matter too
If the players drop to 50% now, then that 46% becomes a more reasonable looking number at the next negotiation.
One more try
Tonight they meet to try one more time. http://www.insidehoops.com/nba_rumors.shtml
by Danyon Rome on Oct 9, 2011 2:03 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
At this point
Since the owners have already given up on improving the competative balance I just want them to get a deal done. 50%, 51%52% 53% I dont care anymore!
I JUST WANT TO SEE BASKETBALL!!
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 9, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
if the owners gave up on it, the next CBA will be that much nastier.
the nhl should have a very smooth cba process as opposed to last time. i assume it will be tweaked. its cba ends this year.
I thought this one was gonna be all out for the owners
I really thought they were gonna push for a hardcap, partially ungaruanteed and shorter contracts, modifications to the draft, losening up trade rules, getting an Arenas clause in place etc.
It would be for the better of the game but I dont want this nonsense every 5 yrs or so…
"My logic fails all the time...especially when talking to females" Rook6980
by Dutch Hoopfan on Oct 9, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed
To be completely honest, I would rather have this season lose games than have to go through this stuff every couple of seasons
by XAGMNINETY on Oct 9, 2011 4:59 PM EDT via iPhone app up reply actions
After reading the playes are open to 52%
I think a deal has to get done. Its stupid for Stern to quibble over what is now chump change. They have their concessions.
by hambonejackson on Oct 9, 2011 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions
that is exactly why i would rather wait for a new system
than see another watered down version resulting in another impasse. The new owners do not want these back and forths and I don’t either.
by thewiz06 on Oct 9, 2011 6:24 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
High hope for that 52!!!
I really hope that number can get this deal done!

by 























