The Players Completely The Owners Completely The Players More but also The Owners The Owners More but also The Players Both Equally Other
I totally side with the owners. The ego from the star players is out of this world these days. My hope is the new CBA will bring them down a peg or two. Fuck you Miami! Fuck you New York!
I voted "other" because I blame no one. I am perfectly happy. I don't watch games anyway. I just read this board to find out what happened. Same way I read the end of a long thread and post to it without knowing the subissues raised in the thread and who's mad at whom.
I blame the owners because they created this monster. They never should have given Shaq his huge contract, and then Garnett, etc. The league was in their hands and they allowed it to become what it is. Actually, if anyone should be blamed, it should be David Stern.
The players are not 'wrong'. The owners are not 'right'. But the owners have the most leverage and will win in the end. The longer the players refuse to admit this, the longer the lockout will last. For this reason, and this reason only, I voted that it's more on the players than the owners.
Maybe the players should consider starting their own Players League. Surely they can find arenas to rent to play their games in. There's an empty one here in San Diego, and a lot of cities have paid for arenas for the teams that aren't playing there right now. If the owners truly are losing money, then guys making big contracts on money losing teams are taking money out of the owner's life savings. I expect that's what an owner SHOULD do, though. A Players League would have to deal with the money losing situations through revenue sharing or luxury taxes or whatever. They'd get 100% of BRI. But BRI would probably be a lot less since sponsors would be wary of a risky venture like a Players League.
Sponsors (especially media types like ESPN/Turner) would also be wary of the wrath of Stern. He would not appreciate them taking their $$ to the enemy.
Steven A of all people shared a story this morning on Mike and Mike that was pretty interesting. He said an owner told him awhile back that because of the economy, everyone had lost a little bit of money EXCEPT the players. Now it's their turn the owner said. Also passed on a story that if the players want to continue to make what they have been making, they can start paying for the chartered planes, 4-5 star hotels, per diem, etc. I think the players are being extremely short sided and greedy in all of this. Remember, 425K average per year for 40 years is what we would need to make to equal what Carmelo Anthony is scheduled to make this season. For him to "sacrifice" a little isn't asking that much. They also brought up a good point on one of the local radio shows this morning. They said the NBA players have no concept of reality. They are not the NFL, or even America's past time. They are viewed by a lot of the people that fill their stadiums as thugs. They said the NBA will absolutely lose fans because of this, and the players have no idea
It's the owners. They could totally settle this amongst themselves by agreeing to revenue sharing, but they'd rather target the players. What would be really sweet is if the players could hold out long enough to cause dissension in the owners' ranks. Some owners have no stake in the current system (Cleveland, Phoenix) and would rather miss entire seasons. Others actually make money and (shock horror! Are actually fans of the game!) But so long as the Celtics, Lakers and probably the Knicks and Bulls are sitting on fat TV deals that can cushion the blow, they've got no incentive to share revenue and help out hapless jerks like Gilbert and Sarver. It would be SWEET if some Russian billionaires could team up and start a new league to help the players hold out. It's funny how easily some fans blame the players. It's the same phenomenon that has poor people opposed to welfare because they're more resentful of people close to them than they are of the truly rich.
Should Toyota then share it's revenue with say GM? Should Walmart share it's revenues with Kroger? Should ATT feel bad for Sprint be forced to share it's revenues with them? Every owner has every right to keep what is theirs. Every owner also has every right to make a profit. That being said, every owner also should have an obligation to put the best product they can out on the floor. Instituting a minimum salray threshold is the best way to do this. Force teams like the Kings to spend more money. Don't force the L*kers or Knicks to give money they rightfully earned through tv deals.
I don't think your analogy to car manufacturers, retail stores, and cell phone networks is apt. They don't rely on one-another to make their product. One team, however, needs another to play the game. The Lakers need teams like MEM, POR, PHX, etc to actually play. So it would make more sense to share the revenue.
Ya, I realized it was a really poor analogy right after I typed. I figured instead of editing, I would just take the flames. It still makes no sense to share to me.
What an awesome reality check that would be. Not only would they have to pay for everything -- jets, arenas, hotels, medical staff, facilities, HCP, etc -- they'd have to decide how to split up the profit, if any, among each other. Or the loss.
Or to put it another way, adding in all the perks he gets, a basketball fan earning $50K per year would have to work for 400 years to make what Carmello Anthony makes in one season. That's a pretty steep public relations hill to climb for poor mistreated Mr. Anthony.
It depends on how you view the league and teams. A better analogy might be a fast food chain. The franchises are owned by individuals, but the company might help out a few locations that are losing money, just to have a presence in those places.
The NFL shares revenues among it's teams and is far and away the most profitable league. Of course they've a hard cap & non-guaranteed contracts too, but it's mainly the sharing that allows every team to compete (even Green Bay) and fans across the country to dream big. While some pine for the NFL of yesteryear where a few teams willing to spend more dominated, the ratings for today's incarnation speak for themselves. A strong league where everyone has a legit shot equals more $$$ for all involved because more fans are interested in their product. Hopefully that makes some sense to you STOMP
I should have been more clear. Sharing makes sense, but not alone. There needs to be a lot more done to the NBA to make it better. As for football, it is many times more popular than the NBA is. So revenue sharing is a bit different. I suppose if the NBA mirrored the NFL in sharing it might work. 60/40 gate splits, National tv money, etc. Not local tv money though
The owners are to blame to some extent for wanting to change the system (one that they have agreed to and contributed to its failure) but I blame the players significantly more. I mean... I am not angry at them, and I don't think they're acting unreasonably in looking out for their best interests, but I think we could chart NBA salaries against a variety of numbers (NBA revenues, the economy as a whole) and see them be way out of whack. Further, I don't really care about individual players. I care about the franchises and the players that wear those jerseys. We could replace every single NBA player and I would still pay attention and would have the utmost confidence that within four or five years the level of play in the NBA would be very impressive once again. Ed O.
