The general economy is down, but NBA revenue is up. Would you accept a 10% pay cut with your employer making record revenues in a good economy for your industry?
Would you accept the NBA offer?
- Thread starter royzzz
- Start date
The general economy is down, but NBA revenue is up. Would you accept a 10% pay cut with your employer making record revenues in a good economy for your industry?
Revenues don't equal profitability. And the REASON they aren't profitable it most of the revenue is going into the players pockets. If my employer was losing money because 58% of their revenue was being given to me and my cronies, I'd expect a pay cut post-haste.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Absolutely! Especially if the alternative was a 20% pay cut or complete unemployment!
The percentage was profitable enough when the CBA was renewed in 2005(?), after being set at 57% in 1999.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
A lot of things have changed drastically since then. Like the price of gas and travel just for an example.
TheItinerantSon
Well-Known Member
non-salary costs for nba teams have increased 40% higher than the rate of inflation...gas/travel don't account for that.
The most likely reason for the dramatic increase in non-player costs is that the owners have been inflating costs to create paper-losses to use in this lockout.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
That was 1 example. I find it hard to believe the players would ever have agreed to the 50/50 split if the #'s were as hollow as you seem to think.
These players wanted to continue be treated like gods. The NBA is attempting to bring them back down to reality. I hope the NBA is able to move on without the majority of these players.
As well as the price of an NBA ticket, or any other revenue source. Is there a good reason to think gas/travel has risen as a percentage of revenue/BRI?
vslice02
Well-Known Member
If I'm the players association - it all has to come down to timing. If it's August, I think it's a decent option to decline and decertify. But these guys are up against the clock - and we all know who is hurt more if the entire season is cancelled. Usually, nothing Billy Hunter does ever suprises me, but I have no idea what he's doing anymore.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't. I would also manage my money carefully as a player and have that to back me up. I would not want to sign a deal that would limit my freedom in choosing what team I wanted to play for when it comes time for me to be a free agent.
InGameStrategy
Well-Known Member
By holding out, those players might get what they ask for: more freedom--more freedom to live wherever they want--without a six-, seven- or eight-figure salary, while the union lawyers desperately attempt to regain some crumb of credibility and leverage.
If negotiations resume, players might not regain any freedom. I don't see why the owners would give any freedom back. Once the antitrust case is struck down, owners can rebuild the league in every way that they want--not just in the ways that they negotiated already.
But in either case, by refusing to accept this deal, the small chance at more freedom will come at a price of significantly lowered compensation. There's no guarantee that the owners will allow any more freedom if negotiations happen down the line.
What is assured that the deal will be less attractive financially. The owners are gonna make the players pay for not accepting this offer; they already warned the players that they would, and they ain't going back on their word.
Sacrificing the freedom to play where players want is a small price to pay for the lavish salaries that NBA players receive--or used to receive. And they (used to) get 4-6 months off to live wherever they damn well please(d).
The financial beatdown that the owners are going to impose will be almost as entertaining as the sport itself.
Almost.
I'd just like to see basketball, especially to see the rookies get a chance to sign contracts and realize their dream of playing in the NBA. That's what bothers me the most in all this, and the fact that so many others (arena employees, nearby businesses etc) are suffering as well. I'm not really on either side. I think the players do put a lot on the line, and they should be compensated as well as the market will bear. It may seem like they're paid way too much just to "play a game" - but it's also their "celebrity" status as entertainers. Look at what others at their level in the entertainment world make. I'd be curious to take the top 450 highly paid movie-tv stars/singers/comedians, etc and see what their salary curve looks like. I have no idea what it would be like, but my own opinion is that an NBA player has a more grueling occupation than someone like Regis Philbin or Vanna White.
And in defense of the owners, I honestly think (as I've mentioned, sorry to be a broken record about this) that they are not as greedy as some of the posters portray. I don't think it's greed that motivates them - I don't think they got into the business of owning a basketball team because they wanted to get rich from it. They're already rich, they have plenty of other resources - - they wouldn't be able to own teams otherwise. Their reasons to own teams vary - some I think are in it because they love the game of basketball, or they love professional sports in general, or they're civic minded and saw team ownership as a way to give something back to their community, or it was a way to gain a degree of "celebrity" status for themselves, who knows?
And in defense of the owners, I honestly think (as I've mentioned, sorry to be a broken record about this) that they are not as greedy as some of the posters portray. I don't think it's greed that motivates them - I don't think they got into the business of owning a basketball team because they wanted to get rich from it. They're already rich, they have plenty of other resources - - they wouldn't be able to own teams otherwise. Their reasons to own teams vary - some I think are in it because they love the game of basketball, or they love professional sports in general, or they're civic minded and saw team ownership as a way to give something back to their community, or it was a way to gain a degree of "celebrity" status for themselves, who knows?
I couldn't agree with you more.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
If I could pick and choose, right now, I'd compare NBA players to Charlie Sheen. That huge sense of self-entitlement caused him to trip over his ego and fall face first into a fresh humble pie. If the players aren't careful, I think they could end up dining from the same plate.
Karadrys30
Well-Known Member
The players have had and continue to have freedom to play where they like. There are costs involved, but they can. Rookies I believe have to sit out a season if they dont sign a contract, but then become free agents. vets can go where they want, they just wont make as much money. So If you want to play somewhere besides the team you are on great, just suck up the loss of revinue and go sign a contract somewhere else. What players want is to be able to force teams to compete in a bidding war for their services, it isnt about movement flexibility. That just doesnt sound as good in the media.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
What three members have voted no?
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Well said. It's a HUGE gambit by the players. If the antitrust case is lost, the players are in a world of hurt. Of course the attorneys don't care; they get paid to fight, not to recommend the players cave and sign the agreement. To put it in the words of that famous poet, C. Boozer, Kessler "gets a "raise," regardless."
I would love to see the idiots in the league (not any of the Jazz players, IMO) have their contracts voided. Do you think Lebron, DWade, Kobe, etc. will turn on Hunter. Fisher and their agents?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...certainly not me!