The legal maneuvering in the N.B.A.’s labor battle began in earnest Tuesday, when the players union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing league officials of failing to negotiate in good faith.

The one-page complaint charges the N.B.A. with making “grossly regressive contract demands,” of failing to provide the union with critical financial data and with repeatedly threatening to lock out players in the absence of a new collective bargaining agreement.

In the one-page complaint, the union accuses the N.B.A. of making “harsh, inflexible and grossly regressive takeaway demands” without offering “appropriate tradeoffs”; “engaging in classic take-it-or-leave-it and surface bargaining” that is intended to provoke a lockout and “coerce” players into accepting the league’s proposal; failing to provide “relevant financial information”; “repeatedly threatening” to lock out the players; and “making demands and threats that are inherently destructive to the collective bargaining process.”

League officials are also accused of bypassing the union to deal directly with players.

The N.B.A. responded in a statement: “There is no merit to the charge filed today by the players association with the National Labor Relations Board, as we have complied — and will continue to comply — with all of our obligations under the federal labor laws. It will not distract us from our efforts to negotiate in good faith a new collective bargaining agreement with the players association.”
I am 100% Team Players on this labor mess. People can say that the players are being greedy. Why should they make millions? What about the police and teachers? Well why should the owners make billions? Trust me if players get paid less, none of that money is going to teachers. Also, athletes are entertainers. Why should Tom Cruise make 50 million for a movie, but Paul Pierce can't make 15 million for a season?

This is what the billionaire owners want:
They are seeking an overhaul of the economic system, including a 38 percent rollback in player salaries — amounting to about $800 million. Owners also want a hard salary cap to replace the current soft-cap system, and they want team payrolls reduced to $45 million, from $58 million.
If you're not great at understanding economics, simply put this is a huge financial cut. Ratings are up, tickets sales continue to escalate and there are longer commercial breaks during games, but the NBA owners are crying poor. No one told you to pay Brendan Haywood and Drew Gooden a combined 100 million. Police your own damn spending.

The players are willing to reduce their 57 percent guarantee of league revenues, but the owners are not willing to negotiate. They want to lock out the players, strip basketball from the fans, and wait for the players to get antsy next Winter and agree to a deal that will make the NBA billionaire owners richer. Don't expect if player salaries go down that your ticket prices will also go down. Trust me on that. That's why I'm Team Players. So who are you siding with?

JR 5/24/2011 11:39:00 PM Edit
« Prev Post Next Post »

Recent Posts

comments powered by Disqus

5 Responses so far.

  1. Players all the way JR. Agree wholeheartedly. I think cutting a few teams may be a better way to handle things. Haywood and Gooden wouldn't make that kind of cash if the league's talent wasn't so watered down.

    I'd drop the whole 'back in my day there were 8 teams' line if I could, but this may be a better option that David Stern is considering in the future.

  2. shelbyl says:

    I'm with players 80% and owners 20%.

    I believe that if there is a cap system, it should be stricter, otherwise it helps some teams form an oligopoly. Yet the scheme the owners are offering will not provide any sorts of solution.

  3. alscorcho says:

    Member owned teams are the best way to go, having single entity owners is a terrible system, they are happy only when the money is flowing

    If the fans have memberships (same as buying a season ticket) and those members elect a board to oversee operations it works better than an owner based system

    all profits made are directed back into the club that made them, if the board is seen to be doing a poor job of running a club, they are ousted at the next general meeting

    this also breeds more passion for fans as they have some direct involvement in their club, a team can't just up and move because it suits the owner, it would only occur because the city didn't have enough fans buying into the team to sustain the organisation

    it's a system that works in other competitions around the world, I am totally against the concept of a team's whole history being determined by a wealthy business man

    obviously it could only work with a hard cap, but that's not such a big issue, a hard cap would be the best means of driving down some of the ridiculously high prices going around

    just my thoughts, not sure how dedicated american sports fans are, but it works here in Australia (compared to sports that follow single-owner models)

  4. shelbyl says:


    If you say this in the US, FOX News would capture you and stone you to death while shouting "Death to the socialist!"

    I agree that it's a good system, yet there's no way that will happen in the US.

  5. alscorcho says:

    Haha, it's so true. The usa is a strange place in that respect, Australia works on the free market too, but you don't get those cold war era lynch mob's here

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.