Owners are replaceable

[freakazoid]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/235541/Roberts-NBA-Owners-Are-Replaceable

Michele Roberts expressed objections to the concept of an NBA salary cap, while also indicating that she's planning on pushing for more than 50-50 split of basketball-related income.

"Why don't we have the owners play half the games?" Roberts said, speaking in her Harlem office to ESPN The Magazine. "There would be no money if not for the players."

"Let's call it what it is. There. Would. Be. No. Money," she added, pausing for emphasis. "Thirty more owners can come in, and nothing will change. These guys [the players] go? The game will change. So let's stop pretending."

Given the context of a nine-year, $24 billion TV deal set to begin in 2016, and the players' ability to opt out of the league's collective bargaining agreement after the 2016-17 season, Roberts' relatively radical perspective could prove to be just as profound a change.

"I don't know of any space other than the world of sports where there's this notion that we will artificially deflate what someone's able to make, just because," she said, talking about a salary cap -- a collectively bargained policy that, in its current form, has constrained team spending in the NBA since 1984-85. "It's incredibly un-American. My DNA is offended by it."

3 years away, and they are gearing up for battle already. Don't know much about Roberts, but she sounds kind of like an idiot. She appears to be talking about the CBA as if it was forced upon the players, which seems odd since agreement is in the title.
Also, whenever I hear someone talk about a free market system, I wonder how they think that could happen without destroying the league.
-
Also, as much as I believe the players deserve more money, I'm sick of hearing about how the players are gonna make their own league, or in this case, how the owners are replaceable. It makes them sound ****ing retarded.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Owners are replaceable though. It's obvious, the NBA just replaced an owner. There are enough rich people who want to buy a NBA team that all 30 owners are replaceable.

 

[The Midnight]

I've heard that in the English Premier League players get about 70% of the profit split, compared to the 50/50 split in the NBA.


Yeah the players are raking it in, but at the same time the owners are also sitting real pretty.

 

[♪alt13]

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/235541/Roberts-NBA-Owners-Are-Replaceable


3 years away, and they are gearing up for battle already. Don't know much about Roberts, but she sounds kind of like an idiot. She appears to be talking about the CBA as if it was forced upon the players, which seems odd since agreement is in the title.
Also, whenever I hear someone talk about a free market system, I wonder how they think that could happen without destroying the league.
-
Also, as much as I believe the players deserve more money, I'm sick of hearing about how the players are gonna make their own league, or in this case, how the owners are replaceable. It makes them sound ****ing retarded.

The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.

 

[The Midnight]

The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.

I agree.


I was thinking about this the other day. What do the "owners" actually own? Basically just the "brands" and the "right" to be included in the NBA. They don't own the stadiums. They don't "own" the players. They own very little as a matter of act. The players could just as easily collectively walk away and start their own league if they don't like what they're getting.

 

[♪alt13]

I agree.


I was thinking about this the other day. What do the "owners" actually own? Basically just the "brands" and the "right" to be included in the NBA. They don't own the stadiums. They don't "own" the players. They own very little as a matter of act. The players could just as easily collectively walk away and start their own league if they don't like what they're getting.

pretty much yeah.

The Nba is especially vulnerable because it is so star driven. If the stars decided they wanted to do it they could. They wouldn't necessarily need a majority of the NBA players to make it work, as long as they had a super majority of the stars.

 

[freakazoid]

Owners are replaceable though. It's obvious, the NBA just replaced an owner. There are enough rich people who want to buy a NBA team that all 30 owners are replaceable.

Replacing the league is a lot more complicated than selling teams one by one. However, for the sake of argument, assume you could replace the owners. Who are you replacing them with? More rich guys who think and operate the same way. Hell, even if the players could somehow come together and make it happen(not buying it for a minute), there would be somebody figuring out how to take advantage of the system and work it to their benefit. Greedy rich guys replaced with other greedy rich guys changes nothing.

The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.

I've heard it before, and I have yet to hear any kind of realistic plan to pull it off. As nasty as it got last time around, I see no reason why it didn't happen if it's so feasible.

 

[The Midnight]

pretty much yeah.

The Nba is especially vulnerable because it is so star driven. If the stars decided they wanted to do it they could. They wouldn't necessarily need a majority of the NBA players to make it work, as long as they had a super majority of the stars.

Absolutely. The fact that the Clippers just got sold for $2billion doesn't help neither. The players don't get to share in that capital gain, so IMO they should get more than just the 50/50 split. I think the players have much more of a leverage this time round.

 

[freakazoid]

pretty much yeah.

The Nba is especially vulnerable because it is so star driven. If the stars decided they wanted to do it they could. They wouldn't necessarily need a majority of the NBA players to make it work, as long as they had a super majority of the stars.

This would likely take years to bring into fruition, meanwhile the current players would be sacrificing their legacy. It's not just a matter of changing team names and telling the fans to show up in a different building.

 

[The Midnight]

This would likely take years to bring into fruition, meanwhile the current players would be sacrificing their legacy. It's not just a matter of changing team names and telling the fans to show up in a different building.

That may be, but the threat itself is a significant bargaining chip for the players. I wouldn't be surprised if the players gradually get more and more % of the profit as time goes by, 60%, 65%, 70%, etc.


This is not the same as when the referees had a strike and the NBA just simply bring in new referees. These are the best of the best basketball players in the World. You can't simply go to the Euroleague and just pick out another LeBron or Carmelo, etc. When you look at it like that the owners have a lot to lose.

 

[Fishsticks]

The players starting their own league is a very real threat to the owners. They could get a similar TV deal. They could lease places to play. They could sell shares in teams like any corporation and retain majority ownership by the players union. It could happen and it could happen quickly.

It is not a real threat. You are talking about millionaires Vs billionaires and brawn vs brains. The players need the league just as the owners need them. this nitwit lawyer is a blowhard.

 

[The Midnight]

Its is not a real threat. You are talking about millionaire Vs Billionaires and brawn vs brains. The players need the league just as the owners need them. this nitwit lawyer is a blowhard.

Valid point, yes. But if the players collectively are adamant that they're not for sale, then no amount of money can buy them. And if the owners decided that they are wiling to pay more then we're back to what the players have wanted all along.


Players' collectiveness is key here, because if you have 5-6 star players who sided with the owners then the players' bargaining power is as good as gone.

 

[Fishsticks]

One thing I do find unfair is the rookie scale. There should be some sort of override that allows a player like AD who is a top 5 player in the league to get paid now.

 

[Fishsticks]

Valid point, yes. But if the players collectively are adamant that they're not for sale, then no amount of money can buy them. And if the owners decided that they are wiling to pay more then we're back to what the players have wanted all along.

You are talking about 20-30 or so players that are REALLY getting paid. the other 400 players have bills. The NBA is not going anywhere under any circumstance. The NBA and their genius marketing made these guys, otherwise they are pounding the blacktop.

EDIT: Point is these guys make money but they live far above their means and there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

 

[♪alt13]

This would likely take years to bring into fruition, meanwhile the current players would be sacrificing their legacy. It's not just a matter of changing team names and telling the fans to show up in a different building.

Legacy? This is about money. Besides what better legacy than to be a founder of the world's premier basketball league.

I think one more thing to consider is HD streaming. It wasn't really an option even just a few years ago. The players wouldn't really be limited to the big cable channels for broadcast rights. There are a number of companies that have the money to pay and the ability to broadcast online.

 

[♪alt13]

It is not a real threat. You are talking about millionaires Vs billionaires and brawn vs brains. The players need the league just as the owners need them. this nitwit lawyer is a blowhard.

It is a real threat which is why the league will pay. It's not going to happen because yes the owners aren't stupid enough to let it go that far, but it is feasible.

 

[The Midnight]

You are talking about 20-30 or so players that are REALLY getting paid. the other 400 players have bills. The NBA is not going anywhere under any circumstance. The NBA and their genius marketing made these guys, otherwise they are pounding the blacktop.

EDIT: Point is these guys make money but they live far above their means and there is plenty of evidence to back this up.

OK, but that's why I think players' unity is key. If 100% of the players are all united then the owners have a problem. Money is not an issue, the players can always find "investors" who will bank roll their new league.


But if the 10-20 or so star players are gonna side with the owners, then yeah of course the players won't have as much bargaining power.

 

[The Midnight]

Legacy? This is about money. Besides what better legacy than to be a founder of the world's premier basketball league.

I think one more thing to consider is HD streaming. It wasn't really an option even just a few years ago. The players wouldn't really be limited to the big cable channels for broadcast rights. There are a number of companies that have the money to pay and the ability to broadcast online.

This is a good point. Much easier now to get a new league up and running and simply sell subscriptions via online streaming. Investors will jump all over this to get in on the action. The NBA had already done a lot of the marketing to make these players household names, it won't be hard.

 

[freakazoid]

That may be, but the threat itself is a significant bargaining chip for the players..

Doubt it. The owners know the feasibility, and more importantly, they know the players. IMO, very few, if any, would want to make the sacrifices that would be necessary to pull this off, no matter what the player's union would have you believe. These guys love the game, and the stars especially value their place in history next to the great players that came before them.
-
I also remember reading something about the NBA being ready to fight this legally, and could tie it up in court. If that's true, none of the players are walking the walk.

 

[freakazoid]

Legacy? This is about money. .

Both come into play.
-

Say it takes 3 years to get to a point similar to NBA now. I doubt you can just clone it over night in one season. Think Lebron/KD/entire spurs team is willing to give up a shot at 3 more rings while making millions?(spurs will be dead by then, but you get the picture) Maybe some players might make that sacrifice, but not most, let alone all, IMO.
-
I do believe the players deserve more money, and I think they will get it, but it will be for other reasons. I have a hard time believing the owners aren't sitting back chuckling over this.