Owners or Players?

[Minstrel]

If they can make more money in another league so be it... but if they want to play in the NBA they're only going to get paid what the market will bear. If this gets too out of control the fans won't be able to afford tickets anymore and everyone will lose.

This isn't a moral issue, it's Capitalism.

That's incorrect. If it were "Capitalism," players would be subject to free market salaries (open bidding), rather than having artificial caps. Teams would pay players only as much as they could afford and still turn a profit. That's what the market will bear.

Instead, the NBA has purposely suppressed the free market by putting in maximum salaries and salary caps.

Unless you're saying that NBA owners (these men of finance) know nothing about balancing costs versus income and therefore, in the absence of free market suppressing rules, would get taken advantage of by those financial shark players?

 

[BBert]

From a historical perspective, I am a strong supporter of labor issues.

You know, things like having the 40 hour work week, weekends, no child labor, and workplace safety.

This labor dispute is not about any of these things which is why I don't have any sympathy for the "workers" in this case.

Perhaps it should be called something completely different since calling this argument between the very privileged and the absurdly privileged the same thing as the struggle between coal miners and their bosses is nuts.

Repped.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm just saying that when one of the combatants realize they have very little public support, they should be more ready to compromise.

Perhaps so where public support is what is being fought over, like some political battles. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that public support matters to either side; you still have yet to explain to me how fan support can impact one side more than the other. My contention is still that whenever basketball resumes, either fans return to the whole thing or they don't. Not "just for the owners."

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

Perhaps so where public support is what is being fought over, like some political battles. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that public support matters to either side; you still have yet to explain to me how fan support can impact one side more than the other. My contention is still that whenever basketball resumes, either fans return to the whole thing or they don't. Not "just for the owners."

We certainly disagree. If the tables were turned and the majority of fans supported the players, that would definitely matter to the owners, because fans can vote with their dollars, owners do not want to offend fans. For the players it's more complex, but i believe players are like most people, they want to be liked, loved and admired, (probably more than most ordinary people). So they will tend to act in ways which will make them liked, loved and admired, and avoid actions which would make them less likely to be liked, loved and admired.

 

[Masbee]

That's incorrect. If it were "Capitalism," players would be subject to free market salaries (open bidding), rather than having artificial caps. Teams would pay players only as much as they could afford and still turn a profit. That's what the market will bear.

Instead, the NBA has purposely suppressed the free market by putting in maximum salaries and salary caps.

Unless you're saying that NBA owners (these men of finance) know nothing about balancing costs versus income and therefore, in the absence of free market suppressing rules, would get taken advantage of by those financial shark players?

But, the NBA is a league. That concept is VERY different than that of competing companies vying for customers business.

You CANNOT have a "free market" for the players. It simply will not work. AT ALL. There is no way for it to work. What would happen is pretty obvious: LA and NY with their billion dollar TV deal (yes BILLION), would sign up any player they liked and have team payrolls multiple times that of the other teams. The league would collapse of its own weight.

The best players matter more in team success in basketball than in any other sport. So, the ability of a small handful of TV rich teams to sign the best players would make the NBA uncompetitive.

The only alternative would be extreme revenue sharing (local ticket and TV revenue shared along with national revenue) - something only possible with a brand new league.

Successful sports leagues must have competition and uncertain outcomes. They have to figure a way to allow the individual teams at least the opportunity to compete. Otherwise it is the Harlem Globetrotters. And fans lose interest.

 

[Minstrel]

For the players it's more complex, but i believe players are like most people, they want to be liked, loved and admired, (probably more than most ordinary people). So they will tend to act in ways which will make them liked, loved and admired, and avoid actions which would make them less likely to be liked, loved and admired.

Fair enough. Personally, I think you're overrating the effect. Being "disliked" for a few months is likely worth a better financial deal for many years. Once the work stoppage is over, the hard feelings go away over time. The results of the negotiations will last for years.

 

[LittleAlex]

So, out of curiosity, why do you side the with the "absurdly privileged?" I'd agree that the players aren't trying to escape exploitative conditions, ala 19th century coal miners. So what's the wonderful principle the billionaire owners are fighting for that has captured your imagination? The ability not to pay people money that they can't help giving out in the absence of salay caps?

If you were neutral, that would be one thing. Your post doesn't do anything to explain why you've decided to support the owners. If the players have "enough wealth" that they shouldn't be whining, that goes even more so for the owners.

I think perhaps my last comments gave the wrong impression.

I don't support the owners very much at all.
More the likely they got their money through less then honest means.
Seriously, it's awfully hard to get billions of dollars without fucking over a large number of people.

I just support the players less then the owners.
This is due to my own feelings about even enjoying basketball itself.
It's a silly game when you get right down to it and I feeling slightly dumb for enjoying it as much as I do.
The idea that someone could already be paid exceedingly well to perform this absurd task, then complain when that might go down to a figure that is still absurd, is very galling to me.

I realize this isn't entirely rational or even consistant but it is my gut reaction.

I do support the fans and the other team employees WAY more then either party.
Both groups of people are wrong from my perspective.
Both groups are greedy bastards whose argument hurts a very large number of people who can't afford to miss more then a couple of paychecks such as our own HCP.
These are the people this lockout will hurt the most and whatever resolves the issue the quickest is the best resolution from my perspective.

It seems to me the quickest resolution would be for the players to just suck it up, take a 10% pay cut with shorter contracts that are not 100% guaranteed since they have significantly less power then the owners.

 

[Minstrel]

You CANNOT have a "free market" for the players. It simply will not work. AT ALL. There is no way for it to work. What would happen is pretty obvious: LA and NY with their billion dollar TV deal (yes BILLION), would sign up any player they liked and have team payrolls multiple times that of the other teams. The league would collapse of its own weight.

The best players matter more in team success in basketball than in any other sport. So, the ability of a small handful of TV rich teams to sign the best players would make the NBA uncompetitive.

First of all, I never said that the NBA should be a purely free market. I simply pointed out that saying this is all just "capitalism" and "what the market will bear" is wrong. This is about owners attempting to secure as much money as they can by artificially tamping down their costs. Whether the absence of such artificial measures might have negative competitive balance issues for fans is a separate issue.

Secondly, the situation you describe was pretty much the case in the 1980s, when teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Sixers were able to assemble "super teams." The league didn't seem to be on the verge of collapsing at all.

 

[Minstrel]

It's a silly game when you get right down to it and I feeling slightly dumb for enjoying it as much as I do.
The idea that someone could already be paid exceedingly well to perform this absurd task, then complain when that might go down to a figure that is still absurd, is very galling to me.

I still don't quite follow you, though. If it's a silly game to enjoy and a silly game to be paid for, isn't it then a silly game to finance? Why is the owners' involvement in the game any less subject to the "silliness" issue that you feel?

I realize that you're not saying it's rational or consistent, just my own question about it.

 

[Spud147]

That's incorrect. If it were "Capitalism," players would be subject to free market salaries (open bidding), rather than having artificial caps. Teams would pay players only as much as they could afford and still turn a profit. That's what the market will bear.

Instead, the NBA has purposely suppressed the free market by putting in maximum salaries and salary caps.

Unless you're saying that NBA owners (these men of finance) know nothing about balancing costs versus income and therefore, in the absence of free market suppressing rules, would get taken advantage of by those financial shark players?

I don't really think of the salary cap as protection for the owners, I think of it as an attempt at parity. It's more to protect the league as a whole. Again, the players don't have to play in the NBA, there are other alternatives that may pay more and they are "free" to take that salary if they want to. I'm not convinced that the market is going to bear much more, we can see empty arenas in other cities when the Blazers are playing there. And most of us can't afford to see them play in person very often because the ticket prices have gone through the roof.

Also, on the flip side of the player arguement, out in the real world if you sign a contract and don't fulfill it you get sued and have to pay it back. These are guaranteed contracts that don't pay for the job they're actually doing, they pay based on past performance and hope for an injury free future.

I'm not saying the owners will get taken advantage of, I'm saying the players don't have a "right" to a bigger percentage of the profit just because the business makes a lot of money.

 

[Minstrel]

Since I've been posting a lot, asking questions of others' positions, I'll just quickly mention what I'd like to see. It's going to be light on numbers, since I'm not trained in accounting and only have a general economics overview from college. Just the main conceptual framework.

First, establish the players' share of the basketball revenue through negotiations.

Then both a hard salary cap and a hard salary floor based on that players' share that ensures teams cannot spend too much on an individual basis but cannot essentially gut their team. Raise the minimum salary (which will have the required effect of limiting what superstars make...if the money paid to players is set, it's a zero-sum game and all the roster spots need to be filled).

Strong revenue sharing from the best NBA markets to the worst. The principle behind this is to help keep afloat teams that really do struggle in their markets and it balances another free market constraint: teams aren't free to move their franchise wherever they want, like other types of businesses. Four teams can't choose to occupy the New York market if they so choose, nor can teams all abandon small markets (for the sake of fans having teams to root for all around the nation). For the privilege of having "protected" markets, I think revenue sharing is fair to impose on the teams in the better markets.

The revenue sharing should include ticket prices and TV revenues, because the only reason those have any value is the league as a whole. The Knicks or Heat wouldn't make any money with no opponents to play. Things like parking and concession revenue don't need to be shared.

I'm not claiming that this is definitively the best system (if you can even call it one with no numbers), as I'm no expert...it's just the fairest system, conceptually, to my current thinking.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm not convinced that the market is going to bear much more, we can see empty arenas in other cities when the Blazers are playing there. And most of us can't afford to see them play in person very often because the ticket prices have gone through the roof.

In a free market system, that would correct itself. If fans couldn't afford tickets, teams would lower the prices so they'd sell and therefore salaries would go down to ensure a profit were made. Again, owners decide what they want to pay, players don't extort it from them with a gun. This is all about owners seeking protection from their own bad decisions.

I'm not saying the owners will get taken advantage of, I'm saying the players don't have a "right" to a bigger percentage of the profit just because the business makes a lot of money.

That's fine. It just means that it is a moral issue to you, not merely "capitalism."

 

[Spud147]

In a free market system, that would correct itself. If fans couldn't afford tickets, teams would lower the prices so they'd sell and therefore salaries would go down to ensure a profit were made. Again, owners decide what they want to pay, players don't extort it from them with a gun. This is all about owners seeking protection from their own bad decisions.



That's fine. It just means that it is a moral issue to you, not merely "capitalism."

You're such a brat!

If this was a "moral" issue with me I wouldn't even watch the NBA. The owners and players are living in a world so far outside my comprehension that they all come across a greedy jerks for the most part... despite the nice PSAs and the citizenship award. Basically I don't think I'd like very many of these people if I knew them in person but I do enjoy the product they put out on the floor and am entertained by it.

 

[Minstrel]

You're such a brat!

If this was a "moral" issue with me I wouldn't even watch the NBA. The owners and players are living in a world so far outside my comprehension that they all come across a greedy jerks for the most part... despite the nice PSAs and the citizenship award. Basically I don't think I'd like very many of these people if I knew them in person but I do enjoy the product they put out on the floor and am entertained by it.

Oh yes...by "moral issue," I didn't mean you feel a moral connection to the individual people. I meant that who you choose between the players and owners is about your sense of "what's fair and just" rather than simply a free market outcome.

I'm not criticizing, just noting it because A. you chose to differentiate between morality and capitalism and B. I'm a brat.

 

[Spud147]

B. I'm a brat.

Excellent post - repped!

 

[MARIS61]

Players all the way.

I'm surprised how many posters support slavery.

 

[Masbee]

First of all, I never said that the NBA should be a purely free market. I simply pointed out that saying this is all just "capitalism" and "what the market will bear" is wrong. This is about owners attempting to secure as much money as they can by artificially tamping down their costs. Whether the absence of such artificial measures might have negative competitive balance issues for fans is a separate issue.

Secondly, the situation you describe was pretty much the case in the 1980s, when teams like the Lakers, Celtics and Sixers were able to assemble "super teams." The league didn't seem to be on the verge of collapsing at all.

The 80's is nothing like the current situation.

In the 80's TV money essentially meant national TV, and that went to the league for even distribution.

Look at the current TV money for NY and LA. It dwarfs ticket sales, merchandise, naming rights, etc. It has changed EVERYTHING.

 

[LittleAlex]

I still don't quite follow you, though. If it's a silly game to enjoy and a silly game to be paid for, isn't it then a silly game to finance? Why is the owners' involvement in the game any less subject to the "silliness" issue that you feel?

I realize that you're not saying it's rational or consistent, just my own question about it.

Here is the best I can do:
I guess I just believe a person who pays for something is slightly more sympathetic a figure then someone who is paid to do something as long as the compensation is reasonable.

In this example, the owners and fans both pay to experiance NBA.
The players are paid by the NBA.

Since the players are compensated exceedingly well for their services (and still would be even if the owners got everything they wanted), my general attitude is "Shut the fuck up and do you damn job."
If the players were forced to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week my attitude would be very different.


And yes, I do believe it more absurd for someone who gets paid to do something silly to complain about payment then it is for someone paying for something silly to complain about it's cost.
Both are stupid but one is slightly more stupid then the other.

One other thing.
Like most people on this board, I have a boss.
They make WAY more money then I do.
Arguably too much money in comparison to their contribution.
However, that's just the way the world works and I came to grips with that fact long ago.

Perhaps I think the players should do the same.

Hell, if they want a bigger share of the pie, why not fund their own basketball league?
It perfectly reasonable thing for them to do, especially since they are what drives basketball's popularity.

If that's what the players did then I would be singing a completely different tune.

In fact, that is my new position.
The players should form their own league and tell all the NBA owners to go fuck themselves.
I would respect the hell out of that.

 

[LittleAlex]

Players all the way.

I'm surprised how many posters support slavery.

I am surprised anyone would equate being paid to play a game but still being free in every other aspect to being owned by someone who controls every single aspect of your life.

I guess we are both surprised.

 

[Minstrel]

The 80's is nothing like the current situation.

In the 80's TV money essentially meant national TV, and that went to the league for even distribution.

Look at the current TV money for NY and LA. It dwarfs ticket sales, merchandise, naming rights, etc. It has changed EVERYTHING.

How much money is in the system may be different, but the reality of certain teams hoarding a number of excellent players was not. My point is that that era was no more competitively balanced than your doomsday scenario and yet doom did not arrive nor did it seem in the offing.

 

[blue32]

I am surprised anyone would equate being paid to play a game but still being free in every other aspect to being owned by someone who controls every single aspect of your life.

I guess we are both surprised.

This is Maris you are talking about........it shouldn't surprise you that much.....

 

[MARIS61]

I am surprised anyone would equate being paid to play a game but still being free in every other aspect to being owned by someone who controls every single aspect of your life.

I guess we are both surprised.

Your surprise would fade if you had ever read an NBA CBA.

If you read the off-court restrictions on personal freedoms, everything from freedom of speech to freedom to choose your own friends to freedom to dress how you wish to freedom to follow your own personal health regimen....

No amount of money can loosen the yoke of slavery, in truth it tightens it.

 

[Ed O]

No amount of money can loosen the yoke of slavery, in truth it tightens it.

So were actual slaves (the ones who weren't paid anything at all and had no hope of freedom) subject to the loosest yoke of slavery?

Ed O.

 

[BBert]

Players all the way.

I'm surprised how many posters support slavery.

Comparing multi-million dollar athletes to slaves is a grievous insult to slaves, and really, any working class stiff anywhere. Seriously. Not funny.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Players all the way.

I'm surprised how many posters support slavery.

No slavery, no pyramids ... just saying.

 

[Denny Crane]

The whole idea of a team owning a player's rights is similar to slavery. The reserve clause in baseball for decades was seen by many as a form of slavery.

http://www.baseballchronology.com/baseball/Background/Glossary/F/Flood_Case.asp

Even though Flood was making $90,000 at the time, he likened the reserve clause to slavery. Arguably, it was a controversial analogy, even among those who opposed the reserve clause. Even so, Americans have long been free to move to a new city and apply for positions in their chosen field. Not so for professional athletes and, thanks to the ridiculous antitrust exception the business of baseball had long enjoyed, particularly not for professional baseball players. It seems the incredibly rich owners believed whole heartedly in capitalism, except as it related to their employees, who they bought, sold, and traded much as slave owners had for hundreds of years prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Owners certainly would not have stood for being bought and sold by the communities that made their fortunes possible.

 

[Ed O]

The whole idea of a team owning a player's rights is similar to slavery. The reserve clause in baseball for decades was seen by many as a form of slavery.

Having kids is a "kind of slavery". Being married is a "kind of slavery".

Wearing your seat belt is a "kind of slavery".

It's a lazy and weak analogy, IMO.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

Having kids is a "kind of slavery". Being married is a "kind of slavery".

Wearing your seat belt is a "kind of slavery".

It's a lazy and weak analogy, IMO.

Ed O.

Posting on S2 is a kind of slavery.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Posting on S2 is a kind of slavery.

barfo

That's why we should form a union.

 

[julius]

That's why we should form a union.

You want to form a union? Why, do you hate America, democracy and capitalism and want to contribute to the death of our way of life?