As the NBA lockout continues, with the very real spectre that an entire season will be lost as both sides refuse to blink, it appears that right now the only thing they can agree on is neither side cares about the fans enough to risk eroding their own position.
The issue that keeps rising from the ashes like a phoenix on amphetamines is who is morally right and who is morally wrong. The issue has had many column inches wasted and yet the answer sits there, plain as day: both and neither.
From a capitalist’s perspective, both sides are well within their rights to withhold capital if they believe the return inadequate for their contribution.
The owners have financial capital and industry structure on their side as they have a monopsony for basketball services. They believe they aren’t getting an adequate return on that capital, whether that return is a fluid mix of status and financial the fact remains they are well within their rights to attempt to maximise it.
The players, on the other hand, own the product. They’re the ones we pay to see play in on TV and in arenas and their ability to play at this level is frightfully fleeting. They have every right to try and maximise their potential return from the revenue they generate and we see this in professional services all the time.
There is no right, wrong or fair in this outcome, only two sides attempting to maximise their return whilst ensuring the other side is appropriately motivated to perform their duties.
But from a moderated socialist perspective, neither is right.
The owners’ losses come from the grand hubris of shelling out the GDP of a small nation from their bank roll to purchase price of these teams, which typically operate in community funded arenas, and yet feel no moral obligation to provide the services that the people have paid for.
The players earn, in addition to their elevated status and increased job security, small fortunes with which are generally incommensurate with their contributions to society and thus it is difficult to accept how they can feel entitled to be intransigent with regards to salary negotiations.
Whilst I do believe the owners will “win” due to having a combination of greater resources and greater consequence the only certainty I see is that the fans will be ignored for all purposes other than political manipulation.
I am a person who has unapologetically made their living on the cutting edge of capitalism but I still see the need to protect some elements of society from the inevitable tensions and consequences that capitalism brings.
mushi
Roar Guru
As a fan I just want games. It just frustrates me that the commercial reality is pretty obvious and yes the owners are bludgeoning them with their power but that’s the model they work under I’m pretty sure none of them want to shift to a socialist concept of fairness and get paid $20 an hour. Now it seems with guys like Garnett involved, who’s competitiveness clearly outweighs his thoughtfulness and judgement, it is a measuring contest for the players the majority of which will lose in the grand scheme of thing even if they get their Phyrric victory (or Phallic in this sense) As for the structure I think the first thing we need to remember is that salary caps aren’t the magic parity fairy. It makes the false assumptions that: First: the only driving force for any employee is money when every single study I ever read has people also valuing things like colleagues, environment and opportunity Second: even if this is the only industry in the world which behaves like this it doesn’t account for differences in purchasing power, state taxes and the unequal third party opportunities in each locale. Third: Even ignoring those two indefensible positions GM’s and Coaches must be have 0 impact on the game and team as they aren’t included in the cap Yes salary caps increase parity but this is a by product not the intention, the intention is simply to cap costs. Ideally the few things I’d like to see: - Higher max contracts to reflect the higher influence of these players - Franchise tagging for max contracts (i.e. you can’t leave a team with a max offer on the table) - A weekly lottery where an agent is selected for physical torture by the bottom placed GM at the time and potentially, but I’m willing to move on this, once a month Sterling is sodomised by the tenants of his slums - X% of the players share of BRI is put aside into a players’ pension which pays out according to years of service - A degree of revenue sharing to ensure the survival of small market teams that have the passionate fans but not the economy to support a competitive team - For contracts I’d like to see a sliding scale for guarantees like 100% for the first two years then 75%, 50%, 25% with a minimum amount guaranteed (with the caveat that you are always guaranteed the minimum salary)
thesportsguy
Guest
whats your stance on the lockout mushi? are you in favor of parity and having a hard cap, or a soft cap and status quo of the current situation?
mushi
Roar Guru
I agree to an extent Ryan but one thing that does get missed is that players are guaranteed their cut of BRI so it doesn’t matter if they sign those mid level players to inflated contracts or not, because they still need to spend that money on players. So whether that money goes to Eddie Curry or Lebron James it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things because you still have Curry and James and you are still paying 57% of BRI. In terms of negotiating the theoretical end game is a deal that is struck just before the point at which it becomes viable for the players to split and form a new league with new owners. It is an unfortunate reality but it is a reality faced in negotiations all around the world where monopsonies/monopolies or oligopsonies/oligopolies exist. One could argue that the owners “concessions” were the original deal and they are now trying to move towards that balancing point. Now I think we are a long way from that point and so I would really think that the brighter ballers (the Foyle’s of the world) would do well to actually consider what that point is and maybe realise that locking in 10 years at 50/50 might actually be viewed as a win in 20 or 30 years time.
thesportsguy
Guest
the owners are their own worst enemy. why on earth give max 7 year 100 million dollar contracts to players like joe johnson? he is at best a top 25-30 player, at best. heres another, travis outlaw for $35million for 5 years ... darko milicic 4 years $20million, or amir johnson 5yr $34million. WOW. seriously? if the owners adjusted their own spending habits accordingly there would be no need for a lockout. i do understand their need for having non guaranteed contracts so they can get out of bad deals like rashard lewis, or greg oden. how bout agreeing to only have 4-5 year max deals. lowering the mid level exception to maybe 3-4 million. having more clauses to get out of injured players deals. more flexbility in trade exceptions to get out of contracts with bad form before you even starting looking how to share BRI, they should address their poor record in giving average and role players HUGE contracts. everybody knows (including the players themselves) that they are not worth that much. only pay the huge contracts out to SUPERSTARS. if they curbed their spending on average players, they would naturally have MORE money. il give you an example, the defending champs dallas have guaranteed brendan haywood almost $30+million dollas over the enxt 4-5 years. WOW. this is your BACKUP centre. he was behind tyson chandler in minutes, importance, and impact. halve that contract (or more) save yourself on luxury tax for being over the limit and have more money for yourself or your team. hands up who think randy foye and ryan gomes are worth more money then eric gordon from the clippers team? i dont. but they both are set to recieve more money this year due to their ridiculous contracts. this despite gordon being a future All star, olympic team member and being a starter. amazing.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Great article mushi. I have a serious issue with the owners giving average players too much money, and then complaining that the system is broken and they need a new one to ‘save them from themselves’. I’ll save you from yourself: a) Don't give an average player an over-inflated contract! b) If you don’t like the system, don’t buy an NBA team. Invest in something else. The arrogance of someone buying an NBA team, and then locking out the players because the system doesn’t work the way you want, is unbelievable. If I buy a house, then decide I don’t like the way it’s painted, do I blame the painters? The players have made more concessions than the owners in this squabble. The owners have made zero concessions. They want their deal, or no deal. That’s not negotiating. And really, they hold all the power, because they don’t care if there is no season. It makes no difference to them. That’s what’s so annoying about this lockout. Yes, it’s all the owners fault. But it’s only the owners who are going to win this fight. The players are better off just taking whatever deal the owners want, because they’re still going to earn millions and millions of dollars. This fight is not about who’s ‘right’, it’s about who’s going to win. And that’s the owners.