Reading through some of those articles, it makes it even easier to hate guys like Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett. Those guys have had many, many years of making NBA max money under their belts, they have endorsement deals coming our their asses (even after the rape) and I would have to assume that even if they never played another minute of NBA basketball in their lives, their financial future is already more than set. I bet it's pretty easy to sit in that position and tell fellow NBA players that they should agree not to budge from a 53% share. That smacks of so much arrogance.
While missing games in an effort to sweeten the deal may be just fine for those 2, try telling guys like Jeremy Evans it's worth missing an entire season for a few extra percentage points. The majority of the NBA is made up of non-Kobe's and non-Garnetts. I hope the rank and file players tell Kobe and friends to take their demands and shove them up their asses.
I agree that it appears that the big-salary players (and their agents) are driving the discussion on the player side, when the low-salary players, the near-retirees, and young players who recently started their NBA careers (or haven't even played a game) would be more inclined to go for the 50-50 split and start playing ball.
Some finger-pointing could be at the high-powered agents, who might be pushing an agenda that isn't in the best interest of the players--especially those players not represented by those agency elites. Even Derek Fisher was bold enough to issue cautionary warnings to many of the players after the agent coalition's inciting memo was released.
https://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/7055538/nba-agents-group-warns-clients-joint-memo
Here's an estimate of the agents' math in this. Suppose they get 5% of the player's salary (which is on the high side of a typical range of 3% to 5%). Then the agent gets $500,000 of a 10-million-dollar player salary per year. The lower the cap goes, the lower the player's likely salary will be, but the difference between a 52% share and a 50% share isn't much--equivalent to a (2%/52% =) about 4% further drop in salary, or about $20,000 drop per year for the agent on a $10 million deal. Since the agent makes an average of ($500,000/82 =) $4,000 per game (rounded to keep the math easy) on each player, then the agent is worse off this year after only about 5 games cancelled. Over the course of a 10-year contract, the agents would be definitely worse off if 50 games (or the entire season) is cancelled.
If the players drag their feet, I believe that the owners are more likely to force a player share below 50% (like the NFL has) than to budge over 50%, even if it costs 'em. A deal can get done at 50-50, and it's really damaging if the players don't come together to agree. I wonder if the little guy (the minimum-salary journeyman, etc.) is being heard here, or if the sound is being drowned out by Dwyane Wade and other high-profile punks.
Some people will kill for money but rarely die for it.
https://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/09/cba-talk-kill-for-money-die-for-faith/
