Why NBA collective bargaining is so difficult, and some possible tweaks that could benefit all parties

https://sports.yahoo.com/why-nba-collective-bargaining-is-so-difficult-and-some-possible-tweaks-that-could-benefit-all-parties-170436444.html

BEN ROHRBACH
Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:04 PM EDT

A few months ago, when I was considering the conversation around Bradley Beal's loyalty to the Washington Wizards, I was struck by the double-edged sword that is the NBA's supermax contract.

Beal, a three-time All-Star, two-time 30 points-per-game scorer and one-time All-NBA selection, is criticized for receiving the five-year, $251 million deal he earned as one of the premier talents in his profession, and the Wizards catch heat for paying him. Both want to win a championship together, but paying a homegrown star to be one could preclude them from fulfilling that promise to the consumers who subsidize his salary.

So, I started asking around about issues anyone had with supermax contracts and their 35% correlation to the salary cap in light of the ongoing collective bargaining negotiations. The most striking of responses I heard from one agent was this: "There are so many problems with it, I wouldn't even know where to begin."

Months later, following two extensions of a December deadline for either the NBA or its players' association to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement at season's end, I have been down that rabbit hole and seen the same light. No solution will ever satisfy all parties. Obstacles to sweeping changes of the existing salary cap system are also too great for both sides to find common ground on an entirely new vision before the current CBA expires in 2024, much less by the impending March 31 opt-out deadline.

This precedes the expiration of the league's media rights deal in 2025, when the current nine-year, $24 billion pact could double or even triple. Breakdowns in CBA negotiations might impact the next order of business, so both the NBA and NBPA anticipate an agreement on collective bargaining sooner than later, league sources told Yahoo Sports. "Everyone is benefiting, so why upset the gravy train?" one source said.

Who benefits most is another matter entirely and one that might have to wait until another CBA, when the disparity between the haves and (relative) have-nots will be even greater than it is now. In the meantime, there are simpler tweaks to the salary structure that could improve the existing system ahead of another cap spike (to an estimated $171 million) in the 2025-26 season, benefiting teams, players and fans of both.

The NBA's dwindling middle class

Reasons exist for every NBA player to complain about the salary cap. It is, at best, restrictive by a magnitude of millions per player and, at worst, in place only to save billionaire team owners from their spending habits.

The rookie scale, which assigns a salary to every draft pick, is inherently unfair, severely limiting a first-round selection's earning power for at least the initial four years of his career. Dallas Mavericks superstar Luka Doncic, en route to a third first-team All-NBA selection, was the league's 121st highest-paid player last year. His five-year, $215 million maximum extension, featuring a starting salary at 30% of the current $123.7 million salary cap, did not begin until this season. Even that falls well short of his actual value.

Not only does Doncic fail to qualify for the 35% supermax until 2026 (eight years into his career), he already counts among the handful of players who could command more than 50% of the cap if there was no limit to max salaries. Before the last round of negotiations, Kobe Bryant estimated LeBron James was worth $75 million to the Cleveland Cavaliers in a free market. Each team's salary cap at the time was $63.1 million.

Most teams feature at least one player worthy of max money. Teams without a second star preserve future cap space in the event they can add another. This puts the squeeze on the NBA's middle class of players, especially in terms of long-term contracts. Teams can maintain flexibility by filling out rosters with minimum, rookie and short-term mid-tier deals. Even the mid-level exception (MLE), which allows teams to exceed the salary cap annually for another suppressed league-average salary slot, comes with restraints. The most lucrative MLE triggers a hard cap. Others are limited to two years. All can be split between multiple players.

A 37-year-old P.J. Tucker was the sole player to receive the full non-taxpayer mid-level exception this past offseason. Only Reggie Bullock and Alec Burks received it in 2021; neither is fully guaranteed next season.

Everything changed in 1998, when Michael Jordan's $33.1 million salary exceeded the $26.9 million cap and a 21-year-old Kevin Garnett began a record six-year, $126 million extension. The ensuing lockout cost the players roughly $500 million and yielded the rookie scale, percentage-based max salaries and the MLE.

This crippled rank-and-file contracts. In the 1992-93 season, prior to the current structure, 60% of players earned somewhere between what the MLE and max salaries would have been (were they in place). Just 2% of players were paid the equivalent of a 25% max salary or more, and the remaining 38% earned between the minimum and what the MLE would have been. This season, 9% of players make the 25% max or better, 21% of salaries settle somewhere between the MLE and max, and 70% fall from the MLE to the minimum.

This is great for the additional 33 players who are making max money but less so for the 103 players whose salaries have dropped into the NBA's lower class (which, admittedly, is still more than the rest of us make).

Take Boston Celtics forward Grant Williams, for example. He reportedly rejected a four-year extension in the $50 million range during the preseason, hoping instead to seek a reported $20 million annually in restricted free agency this summer. Only, almost two-thirds of the league's teams are projected to have less than $20 million in cap space come July. Much of the remaining third will not want to commit a chunk of its available money to a player whose salary the Celtics can match. That could leave Williams settling for either the MLE (the Miami Heat are among teams interested at that price, per league sources) or Boston's original offer.

The advent of max salary slots created a greater disparity between the highest-paid players and mid-level NBA salaries. That gap will only grow wider with a new media rights deal, even if percentages for max salary slots remain the same. The 25% max was roughly double the MLE in 2002-03, and it is triple 20 years later. Fast forward to the 2032-33 season, when the 35% max and the MLE are projected to be $55.1 million apart from each other on an annual basis, and there will likely be even fewer mid-tier contracts.

There is no 'fair' in collective bargaining

This may be fair in the context of a salary cap, although the system itself is inherently unfair to all players. Stars drive revenue. In a free market, their salaries would still significantly outpace those of the players who elevate their teams from playoff to championship contention. Mid-tier deals like those doled out during the cap spike-induced spending spree in 2016 free agency are proof that: 1) team owners would not be able to help themselves in the absence of a cap, and 2) rank-and-file players are more likely to be "overpaid" with a cap.

Do not bat an eyelash when superstars earn $70 million starting salaries as the cap exceeds $200 million in the not-so-distant future. Most will be worth more than that. Remember, the average franchise valuation has risen at a rate (roughly 1,200%) four times the growth of the salary cap over the past two decades. In the NBA's first season removed from in-arena pandemic restrictions, only the Brooklyn Nets — a failed super-team experiment in the league's largest media market — lost money last year, according to Forbes.

How the NBA's middle class feels about a growing income disparity in relation to its elite teammates may differ from the reality that might result from lifting salary restrictions and the cap altogether. This is where we remind you that superstars Chris Paul and James were respectively the NBPA president and first vice president when the union last negotiated the CBA in 2016. James and Kevin Durant were among those pushing hardest to remove all restrictions on max salaries in the years leading up to that agreement.

This year's NBPA leadership features C.J. McCollum as union president and Williams as his first lieutenant. The two could find themselves on both extremes of what non-stars can earn between a max and MLE.

Again, there is no perfect system. While 30 teams compete against each other for titles, the NBA has not faced a challenger for half a century, and the basketball business is no egalitarian endeavor. Average NBA salaries rose nearly tenfold over the life of the ABA. The leagues merged in 1976, installing a salary cap by 1984, and team owners have been taking bigger bites of the basketball-related income pie ever since.

There is a reason billionaire team owners have wrested more control in successive bargaining sessions, even though the league's existence is far more dependent on multimillionaire players than their bosses.

"Miss a couple of paychecks and uh-oh," said once source from the union's perspective.

The concept of a hard cap, which the NFL uses to wield more power over its players, is "a non-starter" for the NBPA, according to league sources. Removing max salary restrictions under the NBA's current structure only favors a handful of true superstars. Lifting the cap entirely, like MLB has, would perpetuate competitive imbalance; no amount of revenue sharing could prevent Los Angeles Clippers owner Steve Ballmer from outspending everyone to an even greater degree than he already is.

When Durant said of his peers in 2014, "A lot of these guys are worth more than they're making," Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban countered by suggesting the NBPA would have to give up guaranteed contracts in order to eliminate salary restrictions. Let us not forget collective bargaining is a give-and-take.

There is a limit to what team owners can and/or will spend. Salaries can only skyrocket so much until someone bears the brunt of those costs, whether it is non-stars on the payroll or fans at the box office.

Tinkering around the edges of a new CBA

There is room for negotiation within the existing system, so long as everyone understands its innate issues. It makes no sense to have rules in place that a) prevent players from earning a 35% max salary into their prime and b) more often result in past-their-prime players with 10 years of service making the most money.

Going back to the Celtics, Jayson Tatum is limited to the 25% max because his two All-NBA selections sandwiched the one season he needed to achieve that status in order to qualify for a 30% max. Never mind he was one of the 15 best players in the league — and worthy of a 35% max — by age 22.

Unless Tatum's All-Star teammate in Boston, Jaylen Brown, makes an All-NBA team, Brown cannot be extended for max money until he enters unrestricted free agency in 2024 (for no other reason than the fact that he accepted less than the max on his rookie extension). This benefits nobody but his potential suitors.

Is the league not interested in incentivizing teams to reward and retain their best players? Teams should be able to extend players for whatever they can pay them in free agency down the line. There has also been some discussion of a system that only counts a percentage of a homegrown player's max salary against the cap. At the very least, the cap hit of a max contract should remain at the given percentage for the life of the deal, so we avoid situations where 8% annual raises outpace cap growth and further limit team-building (like how Russell Westbrook's supermax contract increased to 40% of the salary cap by its fourth season).

Other ideas, like a path to ownership equity for players, are less likely right now, per league sources. It will take that kind of outside-the-box thinking — and investments from both sides — to inch closer to fairness, but "lawyers by nature are not creative," one source said, and the game's power players are doing just fine.

The double-edged sword of supermax contracts

None of this solves the fact that not all max salary players are the same. Phoenix Suns center Deandre Ayton, who found one team in free agency willing to offer him the 25% max, is on the same deal as Tatum, who would have all 30 teams lining up to pay him far more than the 35% max if they could. The cap feeds on this inequity, and that may also be unfair contextually. One team's best player will be better than the next, but it will result in situations where Beal gets his 35% max 10 years into his career, and everyone is mad.

The success rate of teams paying 35% of the cap to any one player is especially low. The pool of players eligible to receive that contract is limited to a) 10-year veterans and b) anyone seven years into his career who has been a) voted the Defensive Player of the Year or to an All-NBA team in his most recent season or both of the two previous seasons, or b) who has named MVP in any of his three most recent seasons. (Keep in mind, most rookie extensions carry a player through his eighth or ninth season in the league.)

The list of players to receive that contract since the CBA first allowed for it in 2017:

Stephen Curry (2017-)

Russell Westbrook (2018-2023)

LeBron James (2018-)

Chris Paul (2018-21)

James Harden (2019-22)

John Wall (2019-23)

Kevin Durant (2019-)

Paul George (2021-)

Giannis Antetokounmpo (2021-)

Kawhi Leonard (2021-)

Damian Lillard (2021-)

Bradley Beal (2022-)

Outside of Curry, James, Antetokounmpo and (maybe) Durant — arguably the four most impactful players of the past 13 seasons — the quality of those deals ranges from prohibitive to disastrous in terms of roster construction. This reinforces the notion that, if you do not have one of a handful of players on your team, you do not stand a chance. (Those four players, plus Leonard, have combined to win the last 11 titles.)

Westbrook is on his sixth team since signing a supermax extension. The Los Angeles Lakers and Utah Jazz are paying him $47.1 million to play for the Clippers. Harden is on his third team in as many years and took a $15 million pay cut to help the Philadelphia 76ers construct a contender. And these are recent MVPs.

The Trail Blazers' ability to build around Lillard only grew harder as his max jumped from 25% to 35% in 2020. They just tacked two more years onto his deal, because he is worth that to the city of Portland. Unless the Blazers commit to paying a luxury tax, which they have only done minimally on a few occasions, Lillard's contract also likely precludes him from winning a championship unless he chases a ring elsewhere.

Therein lies a problem. Lillard could not have earned the 35% max with any other team than the one that drafted him until this season, when he's 32 years old (an NBA lifetime for most diminutive point guards) and not a single team had the cap space to give him that contract. Yet, there is no rule in place to prevent Portland from setting its own hard cap, even as the team's value has increased sixfold in Lillard's tenure.

Facing a similar scenario, Anthony Davis asked off the New Orleans Pelicans, who have never paid the luxury tax, and left $60 million on the table — money the Lakers pocketed when he delivered them a title. Lest we forget the reason the Lakers can afford Davis is because James also has his max salary capped. Percentage-based max contracts actually promote the concepts of super-teams and superstar movement.

Like the agent said, too many problems to count.

Given the brief history of supermax contracts, the prudent thing for Portland to do would have been to lowball Lillard, daring him to leave. Same goes for the Wizards and Beal (and John Wall before him). In other words, if your team does not boast a transcendent superstar — an all-time legend, really — it is incentivized to restrict a star's earning power even more than it already is, and stars have it better than 91% of the NBA.

Nobody outside the union really cares, because $200 million contracts are funny money to the rest of us, and they will get get sillier as they soar further into the unfathomable in 2025. The question is whether the vast majority of players who earn far less (and will soon see that disparity grow) would ever bring the gravy train to a halt for a CBA that increases financial flexibility for rookies and expands the NBA's middle class.

Welcome to collective bargaining, where the house always wins in the end.

Quite the broken system. In my opinion, the NBA Players Association is one of several pro league unions that has grown to carry way too much power.

I would like to see an NFL style hard cap, but as the article points out, the union would never let that enter into the conversation. I think that would allow for more creative contract structuring and perhaps more balanced roster building opportunities.

It's impressive that all but one franchise was profitable last year. That shouldn't lead the NBPA to think there's a treasure chest they can gut, however. My guess is that's exactly where their short-sighted view takes them.

NYCelt wrote:Quite the broken system. In my opinion, the NBA Players Association is one of several pro league unions that has grown to carry way too much power.

I would like to see an NFL style hard cap, but as the article points out, the union would never let that enter into the conversation. I think that would allow for more creative contract structuring and perhaps more balanced roster building opportunities.

It's impressive that all but one franchise was profitable last year. That shouldn't lead the NBPA to think there's a treasure chest they can gut, however. My guess is that's exactly where their short-sighted view takes them.

The owners are the ones who have the power (money)  The NBPA negotiates the extent of that power through the CBA.  The CBA continues to evolve and there are several changes that need to be implemented.  

When Tatum did not get the money that he deserved because he did not make one of the all NBA teams, it seemed unfair to me.  I do not think that a player should be restricted because a group of biased voters and rules left him off of too many ballots.

Jaylen is facing the same dilemma this summer.  He is currently ranked 11th in the NBA in scoring and #2 behind Mitchell at the SG position. Also a lot of players are multi-positional players and we know Jaylen plays a lot of SF as well. The NBA does not distinguish between a PG and a SG so he may not make the team.  That is inherently unfair. He would have to wait until the summer of 24 to get paid and that could compromise the Celtics ability to retain him.

The rules regarding qualifications for getting a max contract needs to change.  I believe a team should be able to offer a max contract to any player on their team.

I would also like to see multiple MLE contracts per team so that you can have more middle class salaries.

The salary CAP and Luxury tax threshold just need to keep pace with NBA revenue.  

Non-guaranteed contracts are already in place.  Teams have to make decisions about who they are willing to pay.  A lot of contracts are incentive based but I just do not like them being tied to league awards.

dboss,

Your second and third paragraphs are a part of why I would like to see a hard cap in the NBA. All that nonsense disappears.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

I still remain firmly in the owners corners on most of this. You can call me an Evil Capitalist Pig, others have before. It's OK, I have big enough shoulders to handle it.

I think that the collective bargaining agreement favors the players. After all, you have rich owners that are willing to pay luxury tax to win. That keeps the goodies well distributed. It is the players getting paid and the luxury tax sharing is like a deposit for future luxury tax payment.

I have one issue with players: there should be some consequence when they decide to not perform and force trades AFTER they have signed their big deal.

I am not surprised that agents will talk about all the unfairness towards players, after all they get paid a % of what players get. It is in their best interest to maximize the share of the players.

I am with NYCelt here.

I enjoy watching the game too much to get too far into the weeds of salary negotiation points, cap and all the other mumbo jumbo that most fans don’t understand or even care about.

However, I can’t help but know the return on investment that owners are making and potentially take home if they decide to sell or get booted out for being naughty.
The value of their franchises have multiplied because of the product on the floor-the players.
Ive always found it funny(not funny ha ha) that folks criticize the players and the unions but don't mind billionaires (The wealthy owners) making multi billions off the backs of millionaires (the rich athlete) and fans. The same folks I’m guessing don't see anything wrong with commissioners (who represent owners) of these major leagues taking home salaries and incentives fatter than most of the players who play the sport.

BTW, Most of the owners have made the bulk of their money in other businesses and the teams they buy are their toys for grownups.  

As far as players not living up to their contracts and forcing trades.
I see know difference in that than the owners signing the same contracts and then trading the player to another team.

I agree, these Players not wanting to play or sit out games are wrong. It is disgusting. Nobody loses here but the fan and the advertisers who paid million$ to media outlets who negotiated with the league to telecast these games to the fans.
The players deserve some of the blame for some of this debacle and the owners as well.

I’m not with the billionaire owners on this. I’m more with the players and the fans. Feel free to call me a commie, socialist pig. I’ll wear it and wear and proudly. :>)

Ktron wrote:
Ive always found it funny(not funny ha ha) that folks criticize the players and the unions but don't mind billionaires (The wealthy owners) making multi billions off the backs of millionaires (the rich athlete) and fans. The same folks I’m guessing don't see anything wrong with commissioners (who represent owners) of these major leagues taking home salaries and incentives fatter than most of the players who play the sport.

As far as players not living up to their contracts and forcing trades.
I see know difference in that than the owners signing the same contracts and then trading the player to another team.

Regarding the two specific points being made above, the NBA CBA requires that salary caps are determined as a percentage of total revenue. There is a lot of "moolah" to go around and the question is who gets how much. Also, it is simplistic to say that NBA has grown on the back of the players. That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

I understand and am aligned with squeezing the fans part. I gave up my Warriors season tickets after the cost went beyond a certain point. But that just means that I am poor and that there are richer people who don't have a problem spending that kind of money.

As for trading the players after signing them, there is no mystery there. It is part of the CBA terms and well understood. Not performing to force a trade is a different matter in my book.

Here's the part that caught my attention:

Outside of Curry, James, Antetokounmpo and (maybe) Durant — arguably the four most impactful players of the past 13 seasons — the quality of those deals ranges from prohibitive to disastrous in terms of roster construction. This reinforces the notion that, if you do not have one of a handful of players on your team, you do not stand a chance. (Those four players, plus Leonard, have combined to win the last 11 titles.)

Does that mean that Dudder was right all along?

gyso wrote:Here's the part that caught my attention:

Outside of Curry, James, Antetokounmpo and (maybe) Durant — arguably the four most impactful players of the past 13 seasons — the quality of those deals ranges from prohibitive to disastrous in terms of roster construction. This reinforces the notion that, if you do not have one of a handful of players on your team, you do not stand a chance. (Those four players, plus Leonard, have combined to win the last 11 titles.)

Does that mean that Dudder was right all along?

“Dudder” wow there is a name from the past!

dboss is right. It's the unwritten Golden Rule. "He who has the gold makes the rules." Owners are and always have been in control. Don't kid yourselves. They can back off or put the pressure on the players whenever they feel it is in their best interests.

It may appear that players have some power, but in reality, they don't. The NBA franchise, as far as the owner is concerned, has growth and annual dividends. As pointed out above, the average franchise valuation has risen at a rate (roughly 1,200%) four times the growth of the salary cap over the past two decades. There's your growth. For an owner that is never going to sell his franchise and will pass it on to heirs, that's a nice number to hear and have in your investment portfolio, but since this is a perpetuity investment, that value will be there and go up and down over time but steadily up, similar to publicly traded stock. While taking your eye off that number, franchises pay excellent dividends, all the revenue coming in every year, via media contracts, fans, merch, ticket sales, recycled luxury taxes/revenue sharing, etc. That's what the owners like to see and have. Even if the two sides can't agree on a new CBA and decide to respectfully take a year or two off via strike or lockout, the first ones back to the table will always be the players because their money will run out far quicker than any of the teams owners money will. Regardless, the owners still have the asset - the franchise.

Yeah, it's a mess for sure. And no major seismic changes will happen with this next CBA except correcting the Kyrie/BS bs. Players are going to have to eat that one. And if the players want to strike on that, owners will say go right ahead. We have time and money on our side. All you have is a little time and a little money!! DOH!!

But as always, let's see what happens!

db

bobc33 wrote:

gyso wrote:Here's the part that caught my attention:

Outside of Curry, James, Antetokounmpo and (maybe) Durant — arguably the four most impactful players of the past 13 seasons — the quality of those deals ranges from prohibitive to disastrous in terms of roster construction. This reinforces the notion that, if you do not have one of a handful of players on your team, you do not stand a chance. (Those four players, plus Leonard, have combined to win the last 11 titles.)

Does that mean that Dudder was right all along?

“Dudder” wow there is a name from the past!

Oh man... Dudder!

I wonder what ever happened to him?

You do not need a calculator to figure out where the power resides.

There exists a 50/50 split in revenue between the players and the owners.  That seems fair to me however there are rules in place that restrict how the player's share is divided up among the players.

The owners get their 50%, end of story.  They have no rules on their 50% share.  Every owner gets a piece of the pie and  in some cases teams under the luxury tax are sucking on the tit of those owners that spend over the tax threshold.  I guess you could call that arrangement a subsidy.  

I'm a union guy first and an owner guy second.  I have and always will side with the workers.  At the same time the checks and balances in place have made the NBA a very successful operation.  The CBA has not achieved a perfect union.  So we can expect changes to be made.  My only hope is that any changes lend themselves to more equity for the players.

prakash wrote:

Ktron wrote:
Ive always found it funny(not funny ha ha) that folks criticize the players and the unions but don't mind billionaires (The wealthy owners) making multi billions off the backs of millionaires (the rich athlete) and fans. The same folks I’m guessing don't see anything wrong with commissioners (who represent owners) of these major leagues taking home salaries and incentives fatter than most of the players who play the sport.

As far as players not living up to their contracts and forcing trades.
I see know difference in that than the owners signing the same contracts and then trading the player to another team.

Regarding the two specific points being made above, the NBA CBA requires that salary caps are determined as a percentage of total revenue.  There is a lot of "moolah" to go around and the question is who gets how much.  Also, it is simplistic to say that NBA has grown on the back of the players.  That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

I understand and am aligned with squeezing the fans part.  I gave up my Warriors season tickets after the cost went beyond a certain point.  But that just means that I am poor and that there are richer people who don't have a problem spending that kind of money.

As for trading the players after signing them, there is no mystery there.  It is part of the CBA terms and well understood.  Not performing to force a trade is a different matter in my book.

That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

Simplistic? Without players who attract real fans like yourself and not rich fans who drag business partners to the games, sit in a box or up front and don’t even watch the game, there is not pocket change for these owners. Players are the product. Period. No players, no arena, no Scal (wait!) and no Sam’s Forum.

I’d venture to say that those type fans (who the owners and league makes every attempt to attract) don’t know Ja from the J’s and probably don’t even care as long as there’s men running around in shorts for 48 minutes.

I’d also venture to say real fans such as yourself (correct me if i am wrong) and I’ll include me couldn’t care less about the half time entertainment, t-shirt shooting, dog tricks and half naked women(well I’ll compromise on this) shaking their booties. Real fan’s don’t don’t come to games to see that and if you want, I’ll show you a study to back that up.
Dig up John Kiley and find his organ and I’m cool with that for 30 minutes. the rest of the shenanigans I as a fan can do without.
TV aims at the casual fans as well. They’re not interested in hard core fans like yourself and others here. Thats another reason why we have this CBA owner/player filibuster and none of the above has anything to do with the game Naismith invented.

I’ll reiterate, I’m 100% with you on players refusing to play unless they are traded but realistically out of the 150 or so players, how many have done that?

dbrown4 wrote:dboss is right.  It's the unwritten Golden Rule.  "He who has the gold makes the rules."  Owners are and always have been in control.  Don't kid yourselves.  They can back off or put the pressure on the players whenever they feel it is in their best interests.  

It may appear that players have some power, but in reality, they don't.  The NBA franchise, as far as the owner is concerned, has growth and annual dividends.  As pointed out above, the average franchise valuation has risen at a rate (roughly 1,200%) four times the growth of the salary cap over the past two decades.   There's your growth.  For an owner that is never going to sell his franchise and will pass it on to heirs, that's a nice number to hear and have in your investment portfolio, but since this is a perpetuity investment, that value will be there and go up and down over time but steadily up, similar to publicly traded stock.  While taking your eye off that number, franchises pay excellent dividends, all the revenue coming in every year, via media contracts, fans, merch, ticket sales, recycled luxury taxes/revenue sharing, etc.  That's what the owners like to see and have.  Even if the two sides can't agree on a new CBA and decide to respectfully take a year or two off via strike or lockout, the first ones back to the table will always be the players because their money will run out far quicker than any of the teams owners money will.  Regardless, the owners still have the asset - the franchise.  

Yeah, it's a mess for sure.  And no major seismic changes will happen with this next CBA except correcting the Kyrie/BS bs.  Players are going to have to eat that one.  And if the players want to strike on that, owners will say go right ahead.  We have time and money on our side.  All you have is a little time and a little money!!  DOH!!

But as always, let's see what happens!

db    

^^^^^^^^^^^ YES^^^^^^^^^^^

The NBA became a financial success once studies indicated and dictated that they needed to attract the Gen Z’s. Employ and implement strategies that resonate with that generation.
Social media, in-house entertainment, fan voting, marketing specifics, on demand and OTT viewing. Social Justice involvement  etc and perceptually transitioning the player from athlete to entertainers.
The league went from struggling to survive to where it is now. Thriving which translates to $$$.
The game, sans rule changes is still the game. Gen Z’s are more attracted to the game because of the above mentioned.
So $ is flowing like never before and with that comes the difficult task of agreeing on player share/owners share. Player empowerment and owner empowerment. As indicated in other posts here, owners have the overwhelming power over the players and always will. They give up nothing without demand and what they agree to share as a result of demand does not usurp the position of still being in power.

None of this matters without the game and the performers.
It just comes down to what fans like us agree to be fair to all. Player,  owner, fan, advertisers and media.
This is ongoing and never ending. And so it is…

NYCelt wrote:dboss,

Your second and third paragraphs are a part of why I would like to see a hard cap in the NBA. All that nonsense disappears.

Of course, that's not going to happen.

I still remain firmly in the owners corners on most of this. You can call me an Evil Capitalist Pig, others have before. It's OK, I have big enough shoulders to handle it.

NYCelt

I do not see how a hard CAP would change the way Max contracts are influenced by players making all NBA teams unless you also changed the rules. So can I assume you agree that the rules should be changed?

I do not have a problem with a Hard Hard Cap provided they get rid of rules that would hard cap a team, when using the full MLE, initiating a sign and trade or using the bi-annual exception to sign a free agent.

I want teams to be able to retain their own players.  Extensions can be offered before a contract expires but in the case of Jaylen, for example, I believe the raise is around 20%.  If he does not make one of the all NBA teams they cannot offer him the max contract that he deserves.  They would have to wait until the summer of 2024.  

When you have award based incentives for players it seems to impact the way that they play,  You would hope for an emphasis on playing team basketball but if you are a talented player and know that you need to reach a high threshold to get paid, maybe you become a bit more selfish.  

I would completely eliminate the luxury tax.  Owners should not get rewarded for not spending money and they should not be penalized for spending money.

I would embrace seeing a hard cap and the ability for teams to spend up to that CAP with few exceptions on how players are paid (would keep rookie salary scale and vet minimum salaries in place)

One more comment and I'm finished.

The 50/50 revenue split sounds good if it was between two individuals. NBA franchises are worth a lot of money. The Celtics are worth around $4 billion dollars. If they spent $170,000,000 million on salaries, the franchise is worth 25 times more, give or take a few heads of cabbage.

Corrections: When I say “average fan” I really mean and should say the “Hard Core” instead.

I also inferred in this thread that the league targets the business community/the one’s that play “take your favorite or potential business partner to a game. The money folks.

Yes, they are targeted but the 1st priority has been the Gen Z’s.

They don’t care about or attempt to entertain the hard core fans like folks on Boards that are BB junkie’s. They already got us.

Ktron wrote:

prakash wrote:

Ktron wrote:
Ive always found it funny(not funny ha ha) that folks criticize the players and the unions but don't mind billionaires (The wealthy owners) making multi billions off the backs of millionaires (the rich athlete) and fans. The same folks I’m guessing don't see anything wrong with commissioners (who represent owners) of these major leagues taking home salaries and incentives fatter than most of the players who play the sport.

As far as players not living up to their contracts and forcing trades.
I see know difference in that than the owners signing the same contracts and then trading the player to another team.

Regarding the two specific points being made above, the NBA CBA requires that salary caps are determined as a percentage of total revenue.  There is a lot of "moolah" to go around and the question is who gets how much.  Also, it is simplistic to say that NBA has grown on the back of the players.  That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

I understand and am aligned with squeezing the fans part.  I gave up my Warriors season tickets after the cost went beyond a certain point.  But that just means that I am poor and that there are richer people who don't have a problem spending that kind of money.

As for trading the players after signing them, there is no mystery there.  It is part of the CBA terms and well understood.  Not performing to force a trade is a different matter in my book.

That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

Simplistic? Without players who attract real fans like yourself and not rich fans who drag business partners to the games, sit in a box or up front and don’t even watch the game, there is not pocket change for these owners. Players are the product. Period. No players, no arena, no Scal (wait!) and no Sam’s Forum.

I’d venture to say that those type fans (who the owners and league makes every attempt to attract) don’t know Ja from the J’s and probably don’t even care as long as there’s men running around in shorts for 48 minutes.

I’d also venture to say real fans such as yourself (correct me if i am wrong) and I’ll include me couldn’t care less about the half time entertainment, t-shirt shooting, dog tricks and half naked women(well I’ll compromise on this) shaking their booties. Real fan’s don’t don’t come to games to see that and if you want, I’ll show you a study to back that up.
Dig up John Kiley and find his organ and I’m cool with that for 30 minutes. the rest of the shenanigans I as a fan can do without.
TV aims at the casual fans as well. They’re not interested in hard core fans like yourself and others here. Thats another reason why we have this CBA owner/player filibuster and none of the above has anything to do with the game Naismith invented.

I’ll reiterate, I’m 100% with you on players refusing to play unless they are traded but realistically out of the 150 or so players, how many have done that?

I understand your fundamental position regarding what is the fair principle to share the moolah being generated. We just differ there but likely not by much. After all, what do you think is the fair share for the players? Today, the salary cap is 44.74% of basketball related income but luxury tax typically doesn't kick in for another 10%. So the players likely average above 55% of total basketball related income.

Yes, the players benefit a lot from the fact that NBA has has figured out how to market Ja nd J's running around in shorts. But it is not the the players that have figured it out. So the others deserve their share of the goods. After all, there are other attempts to market people running around in shorts without this kind of success.

By focusing on the in game entertainment like shirt tossing, etc., you minimized my other point like arena rental, practice facility and coaching and support staff expenses and all the people that have to be hired to ensure that the game day runs smoothly. I am not sure of how much actual profits do the owners make for basketball related income. Most of their gains likely come from growth in franchise value but that gain is not realized until a sale of their stake.

Any way, this fairness discussion is better held over a beer. Form your posts I guess that your are in Atlanta area. I have family there and go there at times. May be we continue the discussion after a few beers?

prakash wrote:

Ktron wrote:

prakash wrote:

Ktron wrote:
Ive always found it funny(not funny ha ha) that folks criticize the players and the unions but don't mind billionaires (The wealthy owners) making multi billions off the backs of millionaires (the rich athlete) and fans. The same folks I’m guessing don't see anything wrong with commissioners (who represent owners) of these major leagues taking home salaries and incentives fatter than most of the players who play the sport.

As far as players not living up to their contracts and forcing trades.
I see know difference in that than the owners signing the same contracts and then trading the player to another team.

Regarding the two specific points being made above, the NBA CBA requires that salary caps are determined as a percentage of total revenue.  There is a lot of "moolah" to go around and the question is who gets how much.  Also, it is simplistic to say that NBA has grown on the back of the players.  That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

I understand and am aligned with squeezing the fans part.  I gave up my Warriors season tickets after the cost went beyond a certain point.  But that just means that I am poor and that there are richer people who don't have a problem spending that kind of money.

As for trading the players after signing them, there is no mystery there.  It is part of the CBA terms and well understood.  Not performing to force a trade is a different matter in my book.

That just completely ignores the complexity of the whole operation that puts out this product: arena rental, practice facility, coaching and business staff, operational staff, in game entertainment, and a lot more.

Simplistic? Without players who attract real fans like yourself and not rich fans who drag business partners to the games, sit in a box or up front and don’t even watch the game, there is not pocket change for these owners. Players are the product. Period. No players, no arena, no Scal (wait!) and no Sam’s Forum.

I’d venture to say that those type fans (who the owners and league makes every attempt to attract) don’t know Ja from the J’s and probably don’t even care as long as there’s men running around in shorts for 48 minutes.

I’d also venture to say real fans such as yourself (correct me if i am wrong) and I’ll include me couldn’t care less about the half time entertainment, t-shirt shooting, dog tricks and half naked women(well I’ll compromise on this) shaking their booties. Real fan’s don’t don’t come to games to see that and if you want, I’ll show you a study to back that up.
Dig up John Kiley and find his organ and I’m cool with that for 30 minutes. the rest of the shenanigans I as a fan can do without.
TV aims at the casual fans as well. They’re not interested in hard core fans like yourself and others here. Thats another reason why we have this CBA owner/player filibuster and none of the above has anything to do with the game Naismith invented.

I’ll reiterate, I’m 100% with you on players refusing to play unless they are traded but realistically out of the 150 or so players, how many have done that?

I understand your fundamental position regarding what is the fair principle to share the moolah being generated.  We just differ there but likely not by much.  After all, what do you think is the fair share for the players?  Today, the salary cap is 44.74% of basketball related income but luxury tax typically doesn't kick in for another 10%.  So the players likely average above 55% of total basketball related income.

Yes, the players benefit a lot from the fact that NBA has has figured out how to market Ja nd J's running around in shorts.  But it is not the the players that have figured it out.  So the others deserve their share of the goods.  After all, there are other attempts to market people running around in shorts without this kind of success.

By focusing on the in game entertainment like shirt tossing, etc., you minimized my other point like arena rental, practice facility and coaching and support staff expenses and all the people that have to be hired to ensure that the game day runs smoothly.  I am not sure of how much actual profits do the owners make for basketball related income.  Most of their gains likely come from growth in franchise value but that gain is not realized until a sale of their stake.

Any way, this fairness discussion is better held over a beer.  Form your posts I guess that your are in Atlanta area.  I have family there and go there at times.  May be we continue the discussion after a few beers?

I’d love to. I used to live in the Atlanta area but I am now in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Are you in the Atlanta area? (Dboss is in Atl) I do visit there a lot because of friends and relatives. It’s definitely worth discussing. I agree, we’re not that far apart on the issue.
I think there was an article posted here awhile ago that said that the TV money by itself, that the teams receive covers most of the players salaries. I may have misinterpreted that but it’s worth looking into.

I live in Bay Area, actually the same town as BobH. Imagine my surprise when I found that out.

Was not aware of the accounting of local tv rights. Will study that. Thanks.

Anyone is  welcome to have a beer or two with me.  I'll even cover the tab.  

If that does not work I can set up a virtual let's go have a beer session.