Things are kinda slow so I'm just gonna think out loud. Billy Hunter and the union merely represent the players. To this point, the players have insisted on the tough stand the union has taken. While there are many backers of the players/union among fans and the media, I haven't heard too many give a good argument that this will all end well for the players in terms of the economics. This leads me to believe that the players are: - putting principles above their own economic best interests - putting bravado above brains - getting bad advice - some combination of the above Maybe there are more...I'm not sure. An awful lot of NBA players come from disadvantaged backgrounds which translates to being short-changed by the education system. These players may be street smart as hell, but are probably kinda weak when it comes to finance and economics. The smarter ones know that they need advice from someone they trust who knows about all this stuff. The union? I assume that most players have ongoing relationships with NBPA reps at various levels. However, while a union can lead its members for a while, they can't get too far ahead of their constituency, and when it comes time to missing paychecks, the union needs to reflect the collective opinion, not mandate it. Players' agents? Oh yeah. They are in constant contact with their clients. A good agent is a player's advocate, friend, confessor and advisor. It's the agents job to pay attention to all that important real world stuff for which many players are ill-prepared, uninterested or both. If the agent is doing his/her job well, a bond of trust is formed. While the best agents will tell you that they also see part of their job as being to educate their clients and limit the level of dependency, I'm not sure that these educational goals are achieved very often during an NBA player's active career. Often, there's a strong dependency there. But above all, the player's agent should always put his client's interests first. The agents' position on these negotiations, at least as voiced by the "Big 6" (or maybe it was 7...I can't remember) has been the hardest of hard lines. It is much harder than the NBPA's position has been. They're still at 57% BRI and urged their players to agree to no changes on the "system issues." They published their letter to their clients and I'm sure that they've been preaching their gospel at every opportunity. How was this good advice? How does this serve their clients' best interests? Do they really believe that they can "break" the owners will? Honestly, I was surprised when the players summarily told the owners to take their 50-50 "hypothetical proposal" and stick it where the sun don't shine. It just didn't make economic sense to me. When I heard the players' resounding FU, I didn't hear Billy Hunter and the NBPA...I heard the players...but what I saw was the agents with their hands up the back of the players jerseys (I hardly saw the agents' lips move though). The more I've thought about this, the more it's pissed me off. I went back and thought about the agents' open letter. Tell me this...what the hell are the agents doing taking this sort of collective action? Was an "NBA Agents Union" formed and they didn't tell us about it? I've made the statement here that the reason the owners will prevail in these negotiations is that, because they'll be owners for decades and the players will only be players for years, the owners can recoup their short-term losses through long-term system gains. Then I got to thinking, who else has the sort of long-term time frame that could make holding out worthwhile? The agents, of course. Just as the owners expect to be owners decades from now, most agents expect to be agents long after the current NBA players have retired. So I'm left asking, are the agents representing their individual clients best interests (like they're supposed to) or have things been flipped on their ear? Are these current players, due to the influence of their trusted agents, now representing their agents' best interests?
I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment. The players really only have four sources of leverage: (1) the leverage that comes from owners losing income during the lockout; (2) the leverage from the players potentially starting their own league (never going to happen); (3) the leverage from big market owners threatening to leave the NBA and start their own league (never going to happen); and (4) decertification. I think Larry Coon has been right on the money in his contention that the players should have immediately moved to decertify. Coon has called agents "the crazy guys in the back with guns" and that seems about right. Despite the conjecture in the press, I don't think Hunter was opposed to the letters by the agents. Hunter has made comments about entertaining decertification every time the NBAPA has an ugly negotiation day. Your argument that agents have fostered unrealistic and destructive expectations among the union members may have more play. The agents' statements about 57%, though, also provided Hunter with leverage -- a clear note to the owners that if there is decertification the agents are going to work them. And we can't even say how much influence agents have in setting player expectations for what is an appropriate deal. There's a lot of ifs there.
The day after the agents' letter, Fisher sent a letter of his own to rebut it. Believe what you want, but the agents are working against the union. Fact. Why? Two reasons...one related to a best case scenario for agents and the second due to an agents' advantage to an extended labor stalemate. The agents' ideal solution is decertification. This is no secret. They've been pushing for it for months. Decertification is all good for agents...no mins, no maxs. Rather than the mandated max 6% for agents, they can get their full 15% of the contracts they negotiate. The agents have all the incentive in the world to work against a collective bargaining agreement and they've done just that. Personally, I don't think the agents have completely convinced their clients, but they've convinced them enough to cause them to tell their union that they're not ready to truly deal.
Here's a couple examples of what I was referring to. Billy Hunter Admits NBPA Decertification Is An Option Oct. 4, 2011 NBA sues union to prevent decertification I understand why decertification is in the best financial interests of the agents, if the players won a class action antitrust lawsuit. But I think the chances of Hunter and Stern not reaching an agreement before a federal court would have time to issue a judgment in an antitrust case -- even on summary judgment -- is zero. Decertifiaction would mark the end of the NBA as we know it. The owners would be forced to come to the table well before the year (at a minimum) it would take to bring a successful antitrust action against the owners. I think our difference of opinion is that you view decertification as a policy that the players could adopt; I view decertification as a negotiation weapon you use to force the owners to bargain.
