The NBA's CBA Battle Begins
While it has been fun seeing the NBPA and NBA begin their PR campaigns on more equal footing than the last time around in the leadup to the 2011 lockout, it already feels like at least the public stances so far have lacked the nuance (which I am fully confident both sides understand) necessary to have this discussion.
New Players’ Association executive director Michele Roberts made a smart decision to redefine the baseline by trying to put elements like the age limit and maximum contracts up for debate. While guaranteed contracts are a major plus for the players, Roberts has a strong point that many of the other system issues hurt the players on an individual or group level. In fact, I would argue that there are ways to get more money to the top players that teams would support as well, including allowing teams to exempt a portion of a longtime player’s salary from the cap and individual max.
Unfortunately, Roberts went so broad outside of that core idea (“There. Would. Be. No. Money.” for example) that it takes the focus away from the NBPA’s moral high ground on certain issues.
Commissioner Adam Silver’s response had to toe a difficult line because while unions are a part of many work environments, wage caps for individuals and segments of a company are not, especially with a goal of competition and skill at the highest level. While he made the fair point about unions in the American workforce, failing to acknowledge the major differences between professional sports leagues and the rest of the working world fails to elevate the discussion.
One of the biggest misconceptions that I see far too frequently is that higher player salaries lead to more expensive tickets for fans. If a team does their job properly, they will price tickets at the maximum amount that buyers are willing to pay. That is basic economics. While having a more expensive team may lead to better results and thus a fan base more accepting of paying those high prices, maximizing revenue must be a separate calculus.
Of course, the more significant problem here stems from the fact that the moral high ground does not matter. No one beyond the players and owners gets a vote on the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, including fans of a particular team, people who like the sport more broadly or the American public at large. The NBPA should learn a lesson from the NFL’s current situation since a public relations nightmare based on various legitimate issues has not made much of a dent on the viewership or profit of America’s biggest league. Sports fans are a tough audience for player leverage because they keep coming back as long as the quality and price are right.
In addition, the format of the season works against players. As I understand it, the playoffs are by far the most profitable time for teams because they actually pay the players less (and it gets tied to how far they go) and can charge more for tickets for a presumably more full house. That means shifting the balance from what the league has presently to what they had in the lockout year actually helps owners in most circumstances.
At the same time, the hope now has to be that the pie can become big enough that even a split that players are unhappy with can yield an agreement. It certainly appears to be a legitimate possibility with the massive new national TV deal and hopefully some successful local television contracts in the future.
