https://grantland.com/the-triangle/...how-the-nbas-money-train-could-keep-chugging/
the above article by Zach lowe about current cba negotiations and how the new revenues from tv deal might affect negotiations had some other interesting tidbits about the leagues ownership revenue sharing and after reading the many posts here in the OT section on these topics over the last forever it seems, I was curious how the nba's model, imperfect as it is, fits into the views of SS2 posters' realworld views concerning the politics being discussed of the up coming elections.
for instance, if the libertarian free market model became the nba choice for a business model, would there even be a NBA team in Portland? would the league devolve into a 6 team tier 1 league with only the finest players?
NY and LA could easily support 2 teams each, probably even 3 or 4, with boston and Chicago the other members. without revenue sharing the small markets would seem to be forced to close up shop or put out a substandard product, as the 72 most elite players would be scarfed up in this model by the top 6 teams. would the collective bargaining power of the players union be increased? not likely as labor unions are the bane of true free markets. certainly without the leagues salary cap the small market teams would be priced out of labor negotiations for the finest players? the free market model would be able to operate without outside oversite or regulation negating any antitrust issues. right to work models would allow for the power of team ownership to
grow expotetinally and even hold hostage regional fan bases to include free rents on revenues and force governments to sponsor costs including stadium construction(even though this happens somewhat currently under existing ownership). they would also leverage their power to control player salaries to a large extent I believe. to many issues for my tiny little brain to forsee all of the possible positive or negative socio-economic impacts in such a case. maybe I am completely wrong and it would be way, way better?
the above article by Zach lowe about current cba negotiations and how the new revenues from tv deal might affect negotiations had some other interesting tidbits about the leagues ownership revenue sharing and after reading the many posts here in the OT section on these topics over the last forever it seems, I was curious how the nba's model, imperfect as it is, fits into the views of SS2 posters' realworld views concerning the politics being discussed of the up coming elections.
for instance, if the libertarian free market model became the nba choice for a business model, would there even be a NBA team in Portland? would the league devolve into a 6 team tier 1 league with only the finest players?
NY and LA could easily support 2 teams each, probably even 3 or 4, with boston and Chicago the other members. without revenue sharing the small markets would seem to be forced to close up shop or put out a substandard product, as the 72 most elite players would be scarfed up in this model by the top 6 teams. would the collective bargaining power of the players union be increased? not likely as labor unions are the bane of true free markets. certainly without the leagues salary cap the small market teams would be priced out of labor negotiations for the finest players? the free market model would be able to operate without outside oversite or regulation negating any antitrust issues. right to work models would allow for the power of team ownership to
grow expotetinally and even hold hostage regional fan bases to include free rents on revenues and force governments to sponsor costs including stadium construction(even though this happens somewhat currently under existing ownership). they would also leverage their power to control player salaries to a large extent I believe. to many issues for my tiny little brain to forsee all of the possible positive or negative socio-economic impacts in such a case. maybe I am completely wrong and it would be way, way better?
