PDA

View Full Version : NBA Work Stoppage



dc_x
10-22-2010, 08:47 AM
It seems like a work stoppage next season is almost unavoidable.

The owners want:

1. a 40% reduction in salaries
2. a hard salary cap
3. elimination of guaranteed contracts

They claim that the league will lose $350m this season. A 40% reduction is salaries would save about $800 million and return the league to profitability.

There is no way the players accept this.

I think you will see a lot of 1 and done college players stick around for their sophomore years. Next season could be a big year for college basketball.

drudy23
10-22-2010, 08:56 AM
Eliminate the WNBA...how much does that save?

DC Muskie
10-22-2010, 09:33 AM
It's going to be very interesting watching Michael Jordan during these proceedings.

I wonder if someone is going to tell him to sell the Bobcats.

I don't think the players will come out of this well. We might not see NBA basketball for awhile, which is fine with me. Save for not seeing Xavier guys play of course.

Kahns Krazy
10-22-2010, 10:19 AM
It's going to be very interesting watching Michael Jordan during these proceedings.

I wonder if someone is going to tell him to sell the Bobcats.

I don't think the players will come out of this well. We might not see NBA basketball for awhile, which is fine with me. Save for not seeing Xavier guys play of course.

I always think I'm going to follow Xavier guys in the NBA. I don't. I find the NBA immensely boring.

XU05and07
10-22-2010, 10:40 AM
A work stoppage in the NBA does what to the NCAA? Does it get more exciting and more competitive because players can't be one-and-done? Do more players go over seas straight out of high school?

As a Cleveland sports fan, the NBA is on life-support in that city anyways so it wouldn't be missing much.

smileyy
10-22-2010, 12:57 PM
What I've read is that neither the owners nor the players have much of a cushion to blink. I don't anticipate a significant loss to the season.

I suspect the players will break first, which is a shame, because it's the owners throwing out ridiculous contracts to players like Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay. Then again, the max salary structure conspires against players like LeBron James, who are significantly more valuable than other players making the max, but paid the same. But that system is only to the detriment of a handful of players, so it's not clear how much the union will care.

My ideal NBA labor agreement features:
* Create a hard salary cap, tied to a % of league revenue
* Retain something like the rookie salary slotting system
* Allow cap "forgiveness", where teams can waive players, pay them, but lose the salary cap hit. The player could then be picked up by another team for a minimum salary cap cost. You'd have to make sure this isn't exploited as a way to sign/trade players outside of the cap though. I think its a shame that teams can be crippled by bad contracts for so long.

wkrq59
10-22-2010, 01:37 PM
What the NBA owners are saying is "SAVE ME FROM MYSELF."
What the NBA players are saying is "No f ... ing way in hell."
What both are saying is Gordon Gecko is right, "greed is good."
What the fans will be saying is "Who gives a sh!t?":eek:

Juice
10-22-2010, 01:58 PM
Just get rid of some teams, its as simple as that. The Raptors, Grizzlies, Bobcats, and some others have terrible fan bases.

Porkopolis
10-22-2010, 02:23 PM
Just get rid of some teams, its as simple as that. The Raptors, Grizzlies, Bobcats, and some others have terrible fan bases.

Pretty much the same situation in the NHL. Columbus drew less than 10,000 last night. Think about that! Some cities just won't consistently support a team for one reason or another.

smileyy
10-22-2010, 02:53 PM
Q pretty much nailed it.

dc_x
10-22-2010, 05:44 PM
Just get rid of some teams, its as simple as that. The Raptors, Grizzlies, Bobcats, and some others have terrible fan bases.

Sounds like that's in play - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5715816

smileyy
10-22-2010, 05:49 PM
I feel like the NBA would love to contract, then re-expand in 5 years, charging new owners a $500M+ entry fee...

PM Thor
10-22-2010, 06:26 PM
I always think I'm going to follow Xavier guys in the NBA. I don't. I find the NBA immensely boring.

Me too. I want to follow them, but it pretty much comes down to catching box scores, that's it.

I don't understand it, I love basketball, I could watch pretty much any college game or even most high school games. The NBA though? Whenever it's on, I turn the channel. But I do have tickets to Lebrons first game back to Cleveland. I can't wait to see that mess. Third row no less.

I wonder if there is a work stoppage, can the players go overseas to play? Are there contractual obligations to stop them?

I HATE dayton.

X-band '01
10-22-2010, 06:41 PM
Eliminate guaranteed contracts? I'm sure the NCAA would love that as it would be a deterrent to players looking to declare for the NBA Draft in hopes of going in Round 1. I can't see the players agreeing to that at all.

The other thing I would ask - does the Larry Bird exception thus become null and void under a hard cap? I think it's one of the better rules the NBA has as far as allowing teams to overpay to keep their own talent at home.

smileyy
10-22-2010, 07:29 PM
I don't understand it, I love basketball, I could watch pretty much any college game or even most high school games. The NBA though? Whenever it's on, I turn the channel.


I can watch an NBA game as long as I care about one of the teams, or if one of the teams is at least a top-5 team. Otherwise, it's like watching two middle-of-the-pack Big 6 teams play each other in NCAA basketball -- basically, mediocre.

The biggest difference I find with the NBA is the existence of the mid-range jumper, and the fact that 99% of the NBA should be able to hit it consistently. Sometimes NCAA basketball is too layups-and-threes for me. The requirement to guard a guy out to 15 feet really stretches defenses. Unfortunately, if teams aren't hitting those jumpers, the game gets really ugly really fast.



I wonder if there is a work stoppage, can the players go overseas to play? Are there contractual obligations to stop them?


If the owners lock the players out (which I think is what's going to happen), I can't see why they wouldn't be able to play overseas. If the players strike, then it looks real bad if they're playing overseas for likely worse deals than the NBA would have given them.

smileyy
10-22-2010, 07:32 PM
Eliminate guaranteed contracts? I'm sure the NCAA would love that as it would be a deterrent to players looking to declare for the NBA Draft in hopes of going in Round 1. I can't see the players agreeing to that at all.

The only way I could see players agreeing to that is if contracts became 50% or more signing bonuses, so the players get guaranteed cash anyway. Which wouldn't help owners much anyway. That's pretty much what you see in the NFL, isn't it?

Non-guaranteed contracts is only on the table in order to be taken off for concessions from the players.

GuyFawkes38
06-27-2011, 08:56 AM
Lots of talk recently about the NBA imposing a "hard salary cap".

This is one of those issues which drives me crazy when I talk about it with friends and family. They all claim to believe in free markets. They claim that companies should have the fundamental right to freely invest in their product. They all claim that massive redistribution of wealth is a bad thing.

Yet, they nearly all believe that salary caps are a great thing and should be strengthened. The belief that the Reds and the Sacramento Kings should have the same money to work with as the Yankees and the Lakers is absurd. It's a sense of entitlement beyond that of any welfare queen.

It's worth pointing out that Europe, the land of socialism, mostly doesn't impose salary caps on their professional leagues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Salary_caps_in_Europe

X-band '01
06-27-2011, 05:28 PM
Baseball has a luxury tax for high payrolls - that's different from the salary cap. The NFL is a much harder cap than the NBA; why do you think they have what's known as the "Larry Bird exception" to keep stars in single markets?

The bright side here is that the media probably won't be beating us over the head with NBA lockout news like they do with the NFL lockout.

smileyy
06-27-2011, 05:34 PM
A point to the contrary, Guy, is that it's "Major League Baseball, Inc.", not "Cincinnati Reds" and "Los Angeles Dodgers" and...

Basically, its the league that's the business, not the individual franchises. In that light salary caps and revenue sharing make more sense. If either the Reds or the Yankees decide that the league isn't profitable for them, the league suffers if they take their ball and go home.

stjamesxu08
06-27-2011, 05:38 PM
Just get rid of some teams, its as simple as that. The Raptors, Grizzlies, Bobcats, and some others have terrible fan bases.

I understand that this remark was made back in October of last year, but the Memphis Grizzlies are a team to be reckoned with. Look what Z-Ro and Mayo were able to do the Spurs and the Thunder. When you add to it the fact that they didn't have Rudy Gay, they are a pretty awesome team going into next year!

X-band '01
06-27-2011, 05:42 PM
A point to the contrary, Guy, is that it's "Major League Baseball, Inc.", not "Cincinnati Reds" and "Los Angeles Dodgers" and...

Basically, its the league that's the business, not the individual franchises. In that light salary caps and revenue sharing make more sense. If either the Reds or the Yankees decide that the league isn't profitable for them, the league suffers if they take their ball and go home.

I'd hate to be the person responsible for the Dodgers' payroll come Thursday. It's one thing for an arena football team or other semipro franchise to not be able to meet a payroll, but the Los Angeles Dodgers?

GoMuskies
06-27-2011, 05:44 PM
I'd hate to be the person responsible for the Dodgers' payroll come Thursday. It's one thing for an arena football team or other semipro franchise to not be able to meet a payroll, but the Los Angeles Dodgers?

The Dodgers have some debtor in possession financing through their bankruptcy filing. Meeting payroll will not be an issue.

bobbiemcgee
06-27-2011, 06:16 PM
I used to have Magic season tickets but have been "priced out" since they moved to their 480m bldg. and 20 bucks to park. Used to be reasonably priced entertainment. Don't really care anymore. They can strike till the cows come home. Bring back women's roller derby.

Smooth
06-27-2011, 06:34 PM
I used to have Magic season tickets but have been "priced out" since they moved to their 480m bldg. and 20 bucks to park. Used to be reasonably priced entertainment. Don't really care anymore. They can strike till the cows come home. Bring back women's roller derby.

http://www.orlandoderbygirls.com/home.cfm

Done.

smileyy
06-27-2011, 06:36 PM
They can strike till the cows come home.

Its a lockout, not a strike. Sports lockouts are the ones where the billionaires, not the millionaires, want more money :)

Xavier
06-27-2011, 08:23 PM
Really hoping not to see an NBA work stoppage--I can pretty much sit and watch and NBA game but it is tough for me to sit and watch a random College game.

nkymuskie
06-27-2011, 09:22 PM
As long as they have the playoffs I wouldn't mind if they just played 10 games during the regular season. Then maybe we would see some effort during the regular season.

GuyFawkes38
06-27-2011, 10:03 PM
A point to the contrary, Guy, is that it's "Major League Baseball, Inc.", not "Cincinnati Reds" and "Los Angeles Dodgers" and...

Basically, its the league that's the business, not the individual franchises. In that light salary caps and revenue sharing make more sense. If either the Reds or the Yankees decide that the league isn't profitable for them, the league suffers if they take their ball and go home.

This is all legally messy. But I believe your off. This is how I understand it.

The MLB, NFL, and NBA have monopolies with their respective sports. The monopolies are formally recognized under the law. It's complicated stuff, but the leagues could all be broken up legally if enough owners and players pushed for it hard enough.

Instead, they all go to the bargaining table and draft deals instead of allowing the free market to work its magic.

In the NBA, top players like Lebron James, Kobe, and Wade are outnumbered by players like Derick Fisher (the head of the players association). As a result, top players get screwed because the players association put an artifically low cap on player contracts as a concession to the owners.

Same thing happens on the owners side. Small market teams outnumber the big market teams. As a result, they have successfully implemented caps and revenue sharing.

The entire process has a 3rd world, top-down, socialist feel to it. In the end, it hurts the leagues.

Juice
06-27-2011, 10:16 PM
Its a lockout, not a strike. Sports lockouts are the ones where the billionaires, not the millionaires, want more money :)

Well for 2/3 or so of the league, the owners just want some money. They're all losing money.

smileyy
06-27-2011, 11:05 PM
I never believe an owner when he says that. Especially after not signing 2 or 3 terrible contracts. And watching team valuations (generally) go up.

What's interesting is that you have to try hard to lose money when player salaries are capped (under the current CBA, players can't make more than X% of basketball revenue).

Guy - the artifically low cap on LeBron, et.al's salary has been an interestingly unexpected side effect of the last CBA. You can argue that it made a team like Miami more likely, because as long as a player is being underpaid (and making up for it in endorsements and other revenue), he may as well be even more underpaid and play where he wants.

I'm not sure how the "free market" could work its magic when the teams are interdependant? I realize that interdependancy is a fairly new concept, and mostly brought about by national TV and internet licensing deals -- in the early days of all the sports, the teams definitely were much more independent, as nearly all revenue was local.

GuyFawkes38
06-27-2011, 11:22 PM
I'm not sure how the "free market" could work its magic when the teams are interdependant? I realize that interdependancy is a fairly new concept, and mostly brought about by national TV and internet licensing deals -- in the early days of all the sports, the teams definitely were much more independent, as nearly all revenue was local.

IMHO, it works well in MLB (and, to a lesser extent, the NBA).

I'm not quite sure how the revenue is split from nationally broadcast games on ESPN and Fox.

But the vast majority of games are broadcast on regional sports networks which franchises individually contract and receive all the revenue from (or the team owns the network like the Yankees).

I think it would be possible for NFL franchises to work out a similar arrangement. It's entirely fair for the Cowboys to receive more TV revenue than the Bengals.

GuyFawkes38
06-28-2011, 12:17 AM
The MLB, NFL, and NBA have monopolies with their respective sports. The monopolies are formally recognized under the law. It's complicated stuff, but the leagues could all be broken up legally if enough owners and players pushed for it hard enough.



yes, I just quoted myself. I think the above quote is true. Google is failing me. Any lawyers reading this.

I did stumble upon this article (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2006/02/Issue-105/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/Group-Of-NFL-Owners-Threaten-Legal-Suit-Over-Revenue-Sharing.aspx)


Group Of NFL Owners Threaten Legal Suit Over Revenue Sharing

NFLPA Exec Dir Gene Upshaw said that “nine wealthy [NFL] teams were threatening to sue if a revenue-sharing plan was forced upon them,” according to Shapiro & Maske of the WASHINGTON POST. Steelers Chair Dan Rooney and other sources confirmed the “threat of litigation but had differing accounts of the number of teams involved.” Rooney, who indicated that “a group of six to nine teams” made the threat, said that he considered it an “‘idle threat’ that will not be carried out.” Rooney: “I think they might vote against revenue-sharing, but what are they going to sue for? ... I don’t see what they can sue about. They have the right to vote no.” The revenue-sharing plan must be approved by 24 of the 32 teams (WASHINGTON POST, 2/21).

I'm guessing Rooney doesn't understand antitrust law. Maybe I don't either. But I believe that one or two angry owners, alone, could end revenue sharing because it stands on shaky legal grounds. Maybe it'll happen in the near future (although right now the owners seem fairly united due to the lockout).

In general, the major sports leagues in the US stand on shaky legal ground.

Juice
06-28-2011, 07:40 AM
yes, I just quoted myself. I think the above quote is true. Google is failing me. Any lawyers reading this.

I did stumble upon this article (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2006/02/Issue-105/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/Group-Of-NFL-Owners-Threaten-Legal-Suit-Over-Revenue-Sharing.aspx)



I'm guessing Rooney doesn't understand antitrust law. Maybe I don't either. But I believe that one or two angry owners, alone, could end revenue sharing because it stands on shaky legal grounds. Maybe it'll happen in the near future (although right now the owners seem fairly united due to the lockout).

In general, the major sports leagues in the US stand on shaky legal ground.

Hasn't the Supreme Court (or other lower courts) ruled several times that the professional sports leagues are not monopolies? I don't see how Mike Brown or Ralph Wilson would be able to sue based on that without any real changes to how the NFL is setup. Mike Brown is lucky to have revenue sharing at this point.

GuyFawkes38
06-28-2011, 08:08 AM
Hasn't the Supreme Court (or other lower courts) ruled several times that the professional sports leagues are not monopolies? I don't see how Mike Brown or Ralph Wilson would be able to sue based on that without any real changes to how the NFL is setup. Mike Brown is lucky to have revenue sharing at this point.

I spent too much time on this last night. But I think I sort of get it.

Yep. The Supreme Court does not see the sports leagues as monopolies. Instead, they view a sports league as a group of individual businesses which compete against each other.

NFL franchises collectively bargain for TV rights. The businesses are acting together in a monopolistic manner (or like a cartel). That's illegal.

But congress passed an antitrust exemption for the NFL. This antitrust exemption might not stand in court. But so far, an owner hasn't seriously challenged it.

In the future, it's very possible to imagine an owner from a larger market legally challenging the antitrust exemption and revenue sharing.

Apparently, according to the article above, some owners have already threatened.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 05:11 PM
I'm tired of people bitching about the players/owners of both the NBA and NFL being "greedy".

It's just a crappy system. Collective bargaining incentivizes clashes like we are seeing this summer. If the system allowed markets to be free, the leagues wouldn't be dealing with this mess.

Like I said before, this entire process has a third world feel to it. Thank god most other sectors of our private economy don't work like this.

smileyy
06-30-2011, 05:43 PM
Well, I don't think they're "greedy" so much as stupid.

The owners are stupid for knowing their total expenses, and still "losing money" because of it (ESPN had a good article on how many of those losses being talked about are finance items such as interest, or amortized expenses from the purchase of the team). I guess I think they're greedy for making financial mistakes, and expecting the players to pay for it. But hey, it works for the banks, so why not for the NBA?

And the players might be stupid for buying into a system that's going to cause the owners to bankrupt themselves (this definitely happened in the NHL where player salaries were 76% of operating expenses), leaving the players out of work. There's arguments that this might be the case in the NBA (that there's no way to be both frugal and competitive), but not to the point of forcing a work stoppage, IMO.

What has a third-world feel to me is owners that want to be guaranteed profits and valuation increase, no matter what the economy is, or how badly they run their team.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 06:11 PM
Well, I don't think they're "greedy" so much as stupid.

The owners are stupid for knowing their total expenses, and still "losing money" because of it (ESPN had a good article on how many of those losses being talked about are finance items such as interest, or amortized expenses from the purchase of the team). I guess I think they're greedy for making financial mistakes, and expecting the players to pay for it. But hey, it works for the banks, so why not for the NBA?

And the players might be stupid for buying into a system that's going to cause the owners to bankrupt themselves (this definitely happened in the NHL where player salaries were 76% of operating expenses), leaving the players out of work. There's arguments that this might be the case in the NBA (that there's no way to be both frugal and competitive), but not to the point of forcing a work stoppage, IMO.

What has a third-world feel to me is owners that want to be guaranteed profits and valuation increase, no matter what the economy is, or how badly they run their team.

definitely a lot of truth to the above. But it's hard to draw up a detailed plan for revenue/compensation for a long period of time.

The previous collective bargaining agreement could not anticipate the economic crash of 08. No one did.

IMHO, collective bargaining on such a massive scale for a long period of time is just a flawed process which inevitably leads to what the NFL and NBA are dealing with this summer.

I'm frustrated that people seem to either blame the owners or the players, but not the collective bargaining process, the real culprit.

smileyy
06-30-2011, 08:07 PM
But it's hard to draw up a detailed plan for revenue/compensation for a long period of time.


I just don't see how the owners don't already have cost controls for player salaries. The players can't make more than 57% of basketball-related revenue. If it's more, the players pay back money out of an escrow fund that's held for the season. If it's less, the owners owe the players and the money is distributed (presumably proportionaly). So I don't see how player salaries affect league profitability, short of 43% being too little for the owners to run their business on.

For the league to be profitable (which is the owner's main talking point) I can't see the need to change the CBA beyond moving that number up or down. So league-wide profitability isn't the real issue going on here. If that were what they owners really wanted, we wouldn't have a lockout.

From what I've read, it seems like there's two things happening here. (1) The owners want to try to break the player's union, and (2) the lare- and small-market owners are avoiding a fight with each other by pursuing this horrible (for the players) CBA.

How do you see a non-CBA based system playing out, Guy? I'm not sure if you're pushing for complete openness (e.g., no draft -- you need a CBA to have a draft) or something else.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 08:48 PM
I just don't see how the owners don't already have cost controls for player salaries. The players can't make more than 57% of basketball-related revenue. If it's more, the players pay back money out of an escrow fund that's held for the season. If it's less, the owners owe the players and the money is distributed (presumably proportionaly). So I don't see how player salaries affect league profitability, short of 43% being too little for the owners to run their business on.

For the league to be profitable (which is the owner's main talking point) I can't see the need to change the CBA beyond moving that number up or down. So league-wide profitability isn't the real issue going on here. If that were what they owners really wanted, we wouldn't have a lockout.

From what I've read, it seems like there's two things happening here. (1) The owners want to try to break the player's union, and (2) the lare- and small-market owners are avoiding a fight with each other by pursuing this horrible (for the players) CBA.

How do you see a non-CBA based system playing out, Guy? I'm not sure if you're pushing for complete openness (e.g., no draft -- you need a CBA to have a draft) or something else.

Good point.

Yes, the owners do come across as stupid.

Who knows what the right player/revenue percentage should be. IMHO, the owners should independently decide their own right mix, in competition with each other.

I'm in favor of a completely open league with no draft, salary caps, minimum or maxim salaries, etc....

I know it sounds like chaos, but open leagues work very well in Europe. European leagues don't have a choice. They all compete against each other. Team and player caps would cause a transfer in talent from one league to another.

The NFL and the NBA just don't have any competition. Lebron James can't take his talent to Europe.

smileyy
06-30-2011, 09:18 PM
My feeling is that that would lead to a roughly 8-team elite league, which, while great for the 8 cities that can support teams, lowers the overall value of the NBA.

This goes back to my point about the league being interdependent. LA or NY or Dallas may not like the concept of revenue sharing on its face, but they'd rather have their cut of a 30-team league that makes $4billion in revenue, rather than an 8-team league that produces significantly less national revenue.

Americans have shown that they don't have much taste for non-top-tier leagues, though I'll admit, the data is somewhat lacking. I feel like the European sports mindset is just a lot different in that regard.

What's keeping LeBron from Europe? Just because no major star has decided to play there, doesn't mean one won't, when the money is right.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 09:41 PM
I wouldn't mind the scenario above.

I think the NFL is fooling people. People seem to believe that the NFL's success stems from revenue sharing and a hard salary cap.

I don't buy it. IMHO, the NFL is big in spite of revenue sharing and a salary cap. It would be better if big market teams had more cash to attract better players.

One of the reasons LA doesn't have a team is because of revenue sharing. Without revenue sharing, LA would get proportionately more TV cash and would surely have a team or two.


What's keeping LeBron from Europe? Just because no major star has decided to play there, doesn't mean one won't, when the money is right.

I'm really not quite sure why I'm so passionate about the individual player's salary cap (20+ million is a lot of money). But I am. I don't think it's fair.

I think the fall of the NBA stemmed from Jordan's retirement. The NBA rose again when Wade, James, Kobe, Durant began to succeed.

I think the stars above are underpaid. The NBA is a star driven league and the stars deserve the revenue.

In all seriousness, why don't James, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Howard get together and organize a strike. The Players association is screwing them over by capping their salaries. They deserve more cash.

A couple years ago Kobe and Lebron did say they might go to Europe to play due to the player's salary cap. Take it one step further and threaten a strike outside of the players association.

XUFan09
06-30-2011, 09:43 PM
The NFL and the NBA just don't have any competition. Lebron James can't take his talent to Europe.

Well, it would be one way to try to actually win a championship.

smileyy
06-30-2011, 09:52 PM
In all seriousness, why don't James, Wade, Kobe, Durant, Howard get together an organize a strike. The Players association is screwing them over by capping their salaries. They deserve more cash.


It certainly led to the oddness of LeBron not being the highest paid player in the league, taking a significant pay cut to play in Miami. Figuring that if he's going to be underpaid, no harm in being underpaid a little more, and maybe even make more overall money through marketing in Miami, than he would in Cleveland.


People seem believe that the NFL's success stems from revenue sharing and a hard salary cap.

The NFL's success comes from giant *($#ing national TV contracts, mostly. That's kind of my point about the league being a single entity. National tv/internet/other-media deals are where most of the revenue comes from. And its a league contract, not a team contract.

The more pervasive the league becomes due to national media, the less location matters, to some extent. This is magnified in football, where you can only make so much money due to attendance. You only have 8 dates, and you sell out everyone. Very different from baseball, where there's 81 dates, and the ballpark isn't filled for most of them. Regional appeal matters a lot more there.

Note there was no salary cap in the NFL last year.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 10:22 PM
The NFL's success comes from giant *($#ing national TV contracts, mostly. That's kind of my point about the league being a single entity. National tv/internet/other-media deals are where most of the revenue comes from. And its a league contract, not a team contract.

The more pervasive the league becomes due to national media, the less location matters, to some extent. This is magnified in football, where you can only make so much money due to attendance. You only have 8 dates, and you sell out everyone. Very different from baseball, where there's 81 dates, and the ballpark isn't filled for most of them. Regional appeal matters a lot more there.

Note there was no salary cap in the NFL last year.

Maybe I'm wrong and the NFL really does benefit from bargaining collectively for tv contracts.

Regardless, IMHO, it definitely should be illegal. Congress passed an antitrust exemption in the 1960's for this specific issue.

I definitely think it's not good for fans. There are more fans in major markets. As a result, they should be able to spend more cash on better teams.

The TV situation for college football is much more fan friendly than the NFL. Every Saturday there must be 50 games on basic cable. It's wonderful. In contrast, the NFL offers, at most, 5 games every sunday.

If college football, under the NCAA, collectively bargained like the NFL, I'd imagine they'd screw over fans with exclusive deals with specific networks, like the NFL.

smileyy
06-30-2011, 10:37 PM
If college football, under the NCAA, collectively bargained like the NFL, I'd imagine they'd screw over fans with exclusive deals with specific networks, like the NFL.

Where do the BCS conference tv networks, like the Big 10 Network, fit into this criteria? The $$$ from those networks been the driving force in conference realignment the past few years.

GuyFawkes38
06-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Where do the BCS conference tv networks, like the Big 10 Network, fit into this criteria? The $$$ from those networks been the driving force in conference realignment the past few years.

true.

Just referring to the regular season, the conferences compete with each other for tv contracts (and vice versa). It's a good thing for consumers.

Imagine an open NFL world where the New England Patriots, a fun team to watch, can land a deal with VS to have every game televised. Consumers like me, who enjoy watching good teams play instead of the Bengals, win.

Tardy Turtle
07-01-2011, 07:07 AM
Consumers like me, who enjoy watching good teams play.

[/URL]http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/3/1/31feb_ORIG-UnbelievableBullshitAirplaneIIAnimated.gif

Liar. You hate the NFL. Remember?

[URL="http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11597"]"That's reason enough for me to support the league" (http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/3/1/31feb_ORIG-UnbelievableBullshitAirplaneIIAnimated.gif)
The NFL Sucks (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8178)
I Hate Joe Buck and the NFL (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7583)
The NFL Sucks (http://www.xavierhoops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6453)

GuyFawkes38
07-01-2011, 11:21 AM
I can't stand the NFL. But I do watch and enjoy Sunday Night Football. Flex scheduling allows NBC to televise good, entertaining games.

Outside of Sunday Night Football, the NFL tv situation absolutely sucks.

Thank you congress for the antitrust exemption.

smileyy
07-01-2011, 12:12 PM
Outside of Sunday Night Football, the NFL tv situation absolutely sucks.

Thank you congress for the antitrust exemption.

How do you know the teams aren't get their best deal via NFL Sunday Ticket? Or do you see that as a monopoly acting in a manner you'd prefer to be illegally?

GuyFawkes38
07-01-2011, 12:18 PM
How do you know the teams aren't get their best deal via NFL Sunday Ticket? Or do you see that as a monopoly acting in a manner you'd prefer to be illegally?

I'd imagine it's complicated.

The Bengals benefit from the current TV situation much more than Dallas Cowboys, who could strike a much more lucrative deal on their own without revenue sharing.

I linked to a story earlier which stated that several owners threatened to sue over the TV deal. So not everyone is happy.

But yes, it should be illegal. Each franchise is a private company. They shouldn't be able to collectively bargain.

GuyFawkes38
07-01-2011, 12:44 PM
Really good, technical article on the lockout:

http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/30819/11-thoughts-about-the-end-of-the-cba

smileyy
07-01-2011, 01:35 PM
More reading:
http://deadspin.com/5816870/exclusive-how-and-why-an-nba-team-makes-a-7-million-profit-look-like-a-28-million-loss
http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/07/01/nba-owners-are-inflating-loss-estimates-but-theyre-likely-to-win-labor-battle/

GuyFawkes38
07-08-2011, 10:50 PM
Bill Simmons is 100% correct on his Grantland article on the lockout (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6749669/if-ruled-nba-world)

Some excerpts:


What Dave would tell the owners: "Fifty-seven percent was too high, and the tax created more problems than it solved. I get that. But with all due respect to Real Adam, I'd argue the Lakers should spend 225 percent as much on salary as the Kings. After all, they play in Los Angeles, not Sacramento. They make more local TV money in one year than Sacramento makes in 12. They can charge three times as much for tickets. And their owner has enough money to pay his players without hawking his prized possessions like he's on an special episode of Pawn Stars. We ARE a league of Haves and Have-Nots. Look at every great season we've ever had — when we're top-heavy and bottom-heavy, that's when we have the best teams and the best playoff games.

"Here's a newsflash: We're not the NFL. They have revenue sharing because it doesn't matter who plays in the Super Bowl, or where Peyton Manning spends his career. All that matters is parity and television money. Our success hinges on star power and big-market teams; we could never survive one year without a team in Los Angeles, much less two decades and counting like the NFL just did. Our attendance numbers these past few years have told us — pretty convincingly — that small-market fans aren't forking over money for professional basketball anymore unless their local team is good or great. And even then, they might not show up.

and


Baseball stars make more money only because there's no salary cap in baseball. I get it. But given the NBA is such a star-driven league, why wouldn't it reward its best players a little more smartly? Why not redistribute NBA salaries so they resemble more of a Hollywood star system? For instance, look at Mission Impossible — Ghost Protocol: Cruise is the "superstar," Jeremy Renner is the secondary star, and Paula Patton, Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames and Josh Holloway were the supporting stars. If the NBA was funding that movie, Cruise would make $25 million, Renner would make $15 million (even though he would have done it for one-third that), Holloway would inexplicably make $9 million, then the other three would probably be overpaid something like $20 million combined. And that makes sense … how?

IMHO, a hard cap would be a disaster for the NBA. Part of the NBA's resurgence the past 5 years stems from big market, glamorous franchises doing so well (Boston, LA, Miami, Dallas, etc).

smileyy
07-09-2011, 06:40 AM
I may have said this before, but this lockout is a fight between the small-market owners and the large-market owners, except they're redirecting that fight to the players. If the players don't buckle, I'd expect some intra-owner fighting.