IMO the worsening world econony and stock markets favor the owners

That's ridiculous and could only happen with 100% leverage. Do you want to talk seriously about this, or are we just going to end up in a roundy-round?

That's 100% leverage. The problem for UFC fighters is that the sport itself is marketed for the most part, not the fighters (pay $50 for UFC 12,313 this Saturday - insert fighter names here!!!), and there aren't a lot of other options available.

Comparing the NBA to UFC seems absurd to me. Clearly the owner, Dana White, is making money hand over fist. I don't think that every NBA owner can say the same about their own franchise.

 

The owners have the leverage, but the economy going (staying?) into the shitter doesn't really move the needle one way or another as far as I can see. Ultimately if people have less disposable income and sponsors aren't doing well and thus not interested in spending as much money on cross-marketing then all that does is shrink the pie that the owners and players split up.

 

Nor are NBA owners.

The only Blazer in the history of the franchise to declare a business bankruptcy is Paul "I own islands, yachts and submarines but I can't pay for my team's expenses" Allen.

 

I think what it does is lessen the average persons support for the players positions. As most of U.S. population have taken at least some sort of large financial hit (home value, job loss, etc etc) the past several years, IMO there is little sympathy for the players not having to offer some significant give ups.

Basically the public says get a clue and take a hit NBA boys, just like almost all of us have had to go thru. It's time for you to "share the pain". And it's sort of hard to have sympathy when that "pain" may be less of a guaranteed contract of 10 mil vs 12 or 13 million, or 3 million vs 5, or no guaranteed contract for 5 or 6 yrs, maybe "only" 3. Just my opinion

 

Public perception has zero percent to do with the way this thing is playing out between the owners and the players ... OK well maybe not zero, but it's damn close. The only things the owners should be worried about is damaging the popularity of the game just as it was starting to rebound after the Michael years, other than that there's no incentive for the the players to bend over and take it just to appease some nebulous notion about public support for their position at the negotiating table.

 

Since way before the lockout began, the union has volunteered to "take a hit." Negotiations are over how much, not whether.

It had been 57% or something and they offered 54% months ago. Owners demanded low 40s. The compromise will probably be low 50s or 50.

You act as if all American employees have taken pay cuts. Who are all these employees who have kept the same job but accepted a pay cut?

Have you offered your boss to cut your pay? The players have.

 

More to the point, what executives and CEO's have volunteered to take pay cuts?

Is David Stern taking a pay cut? Has Larry Miller stepped up to the plate and returned 20% of his salary?

 

Just the opposite, I believe most people would rather see the players stand tough and fight for their worth.

Just as illegal aliens working for sub-minimum wages hurts the average American's pay, so does any concession by workers at the higher end of the spectrum. Most fans realize who's raking in more than they're worth, and it's not the most talented basketball players in the world.

 

I'd like to see the players demand a raise to say 65% and sit out a year to make their point.

The owners have nothing without them, nothing at all.

 

Speaking of an owner's other businesses and investments, it's a simple accounting trick to transfer expenses from them to the team, and to transfer revenues to them from the team. You know that as an attorney.

I don't believe them, that more than a very few are losing money.