Blog Entry

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

Posted on: October 7, 2011 7:57 pm
Edited on: October 7, 2011 9:54 pm
Posted by Ben Gollivernba-lockout

Earlier Friday, Ken Berger of reported that the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association could not agree to meet prior to Monday, the deadline commissioner David Stern has set for cancelling the first two weeks of the 2011-2012 regular season. 

Berger reported that an NBPA source said that the NBA would only agree to meet if the union agreed to accept a 50-50 split of Basketball-Related Income. The NBPA felt it could not go through with a meeting given that major pre-condition.

The New York Times reports that NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver admitted that the NBA was not willing to negotiate past the 50-50 BRI split but said the league was willing to discuss other subjects, such as system issues.  

Adam Silver, the N.B.A.’s deputy commissioner, confirmed that the owners are standing firm at 50-50, although he disagreed with the union’s portrayal of events.

“What we told the union was that we were not prepared to negotiate over the B.R.I. split beyond the 50-50 concept that had already been discussed,” Silver said, referring to the N.B.A.’s acronym for basketball-related income.

Silver added, however, that the league was “prepared to continue negotiating over the many other issues that remain open” — such as the salary-cap system, the luxury tax and the length of contracts.

An NBA spokesperson returned the finger-pointing in a statement to and other media: "We told the union today that we were willing to meet as early as Sunday. We also advised them we were unwilling to move above the 50-50 split of revenues that was discussed between the parties on Tuesday but that we wanted to meet with them to discuss the many remaining open issues. The union declined."

The posturing on both sides here is clear.

For the players, agreeing to meet to discuss only portions of the deal would effectively allow the owners to take the lead on setting the agenda, and that's a big no-no, because it sends a message to the average player that the union's leadership is weak and not on equal footing. To agree to take a stand, the average player has to feel he's standing on firm ground, not a sand dune.  

For the league, the refusal to budge on the 50/50 split accomplishes two goals. First, it continues to perpetuate the idea that the talks are stalling because the players are refusing to accept a "fair" 50/50 split, catering to public opinion and applying pressure on the NBPA to re-think its refusal to budget on its formal desire for 53 percent of the BRI. Second, it sends a message to any rank-and-file player who might be eager to get back to work. That message is: "We'll give you 50/50 and if you're OK with that, great, just let your union leadership know."

This latest impasse wastes valuable time and will likely lead to both sides digging in deeper for the time being. Once the deadline to "save the full season" is passed, the two sides will need to regenerate an urgency factor, or we could all be waiting for awhile.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: October 9, 2011 11:32 am

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

Parity doesn't mean equality. It means the RESOURCES are similar, not the use of them. All else equal, better front offices and coaches will win more...BUT, a franchise with a payroll 3 times the average, isn't "all else equal".  Coaching and staff RARELY beats superior talent, and without a cap, it just makes it tougher for teams not in an elite budget situation. They theoretically can accomplish the same things with a revenue sharing system, but only if there is a profit to be made....complicated by the common "luxury tax" situation- if you spend $200 M and make $20 M, and I spend $100 M and lose $50 M, you still bought better talent than I can, even if I get my lost $50 M back, so, I still can''t compete. If we both only have $150 M to spend, the better team will win more often, not just the wealthier one. 

The bottom line is, the NBA lost $300M last year, so "revenue sharing" as it is now, is a joke. A few spendaholic owners have made it neccessary to  have a cap...especially since players can't seem to make it without a few more million each year.

Since: Feb 15, 2010
Posted on: October 8, 2011 6:48 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

Let's go guys, get a deal done, and save the NBA season.

Since: Feb 15, 2008
Posted on: October 8, 2011 5:36 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

You're right. So the teams with the most competent front offices will be the best teams in the league.....which ironically enough, are currently already the best teams in the league now.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: October 8, 2011 5:31 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

Parity ? Saving a SEASON ? People are missing the bigger point.

75% of the teams in the NBA lost money- $300 million worth. 5 teams pooled  several "max contracts" originally designed to have one per team, because there isn't a cap.  

The players are rigid in keeping the current system, which is the opposite of parity, or sensible business...They want to maintain the ability for the biggest names in the NBA to demand ever-larger contracts, and to have the ability to dupe a few owners willing to throw millions of dollars into buying a championship to satisfy the whims of those players, while risking the ability of the league to stay solvent enough to continue. 

Owners were fools to have allowed the players to expect unrealistic and unsustainable money, and  lead them to believe they can control the machinations of a multi-billion dollar industry without any of the massive financial investment or risk. 

The bottom line is, eventually players are going to have to take less, or find another place to make all that money. Owners need to fix this now, or they'll just continue to lose money until they do. As a fan, I don't want to see a lost season, but at this point, I don't see anything being fixed without that. Players need to go try to earn money overseas, or live on what they have left, or get some cars repossessed...then they might appreciate the opportunity they have, and realize that if they wanted to be billionaire businessmen, they should have actually gotten an education and went to work in business, instead of majoring in basketball.       
;     &nbs

Since: Sep 19, 2011
Posted on: October 8, 2011 3:10 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

I don't think that Parity will remove the 60 win team, it still come down to the players if the team is a good team or not. 

Since: Dec 3, 2006
Posted on: October 8, 2011 10:24 am

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

owners already dropped the hard cap talk...

Since: Feb 15, 2008
Posted on: October 8, 2011 1:11 am

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

   In a perfect NBA, there would be parity amongst all nba teams. I mean what would get everyone's juices flowing more than a 41-39 1st place Boston Celtics team taking on a last place 40-40 Toronto Raptors team late in the year in a hard fought battle for homecourt throught the playoffs? Or a 45-37 Washington Wizards team taking on a 43-39 Minnesota Timberwolves team in the NBA Finals? The world would line up to see that. Ratings would be through the roof. I mean seriously give me a break. The owners better be careful what they wish for lest they get it. The league needs great teams in order to thrive. And for every 60 win team you have there has to be a 60 loss team, and for every 50 win team there needs to be a 50 loss team....that's the law of averages.

Since: Oct 9, 2010
Posted on: October 7, 2011 11:37 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

Normally I would be with the players in these situations, but in this case the owners are right. The owners need to put the hard cap back on the table, then someone needs to tall the players that creating a more competitive league will create more revenue in national TV deals which will actually increase the money they would get in the long run. Unfortunately the players are listening to agents, who should have no say in the process, but they are conning their clients so they can keep their gravy train rolling. Hold the line owners. It will be better in the long run.

Since: Sep 13, 2011
Posted on: October 7, 2011 11:18 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

The players are easily the problem. The league gave them their way on the contracts, and the cap, yet still they want more. Just unreal to me, I'm completely baffled by this amount of greed.

Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: October 7, 2011 10:35 pm

NBA: We would have negotiated system issues

At this point the union has mostly lost. It has lost any momentum. While the owners have moved from the 34% that enables a 4% return on investment to 50% the players have only moved from 57% (lose $300M per year) to 54% (lose $200KM per year). The impression left is a union who will not allow the league to regain fiscal viability. As many have written here the word is greed. This is the biggest loss. $203,252 per hour average game time work per player. That is what they are refusing. (Do the math: 82*48*5*30 - games times minutes in a game times players per team times teams, all divided into $4.0B *50%). Would you hold out and ruin a season because you could not live on over $200,000 per hour of work? Are they crazy? Finally they have lost the owners. The hard-nosed owners are saying: "See? We told you they were not reasonable!" And to the fans that looks like the present situation.

The owners have been ahead of the curve from the beginning. Note the $2B offered was also offered last spring. The owners have given up their demand for non-guaranteed contracts (so they do not have to pay players who cannot play); given up their demand for a hard cap (an essential for opening up the opportunity for each team to win); given up making a profit and still the players will not and have not moved. Guess you know where the problem lies.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or