To date, nearly all the thrusts which concern the matter of the NBA's next collective bargaining agreement -- due in the summer of 2011 -- has represented owner interests. In fairness to David Stern, Secaucus has kept its nose remarkably clean: despite it being in his potential negotiating interest to present dire straits for the league, the commissioner has been overwhelmingly upbeat, both about the condition of the NBA and about the prospect of progress on a new deal with the Players Association.Why the owners' interests have been more public than those of the players is no mystery: the league has probably 100 high-level surrogates (30 team owners and their deputies) to leak quotes to columnists and present a doomsday scenario. The union has its brass (led by Billy Hunter), players (who have more pressing matters from October to June) and agents (most of whom [ahem] would rather shiv each other than come together for the good of their collective client base). That's it.
But now Hunter has taken a step into the spotlight.
Hunter did a few interviews this week. In a talk with Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick, the union chief indicated he would request a full audit of team finances before consenting to a contraction of the players' pot of overall league revenues. Current rules allow the union five team audits per year.
League spokesman Tim Frank told Soshnick the NBA will consent to such a request, as it has in the past. The results, if made public, will be highly interesting, especially to folks in New Orleans, Indiana, Milwaukee and Sacramento.
Howard Beck of New York Times has some interesting notes from Hunter as well, including quite a bit on the surprising import revenue sharing holds in Hunter's initial talking points. FanHouse's own Nate Jones has been a vocal proponent of stronger revenue sharing. The argument is that increasing the scope of the league's current redistribution would bolster the bottom lines of small- to mid-market franchises, which would allow teams with trouble local circumstances better compete with the major-market clubs. This would, in the end, helps the small- to mid-market owners and sub-elite players, who would conceivably have a wider breadth of options as teams (such as Memphis) wouldn't be forced to hold on to cap space for purely financial reasons.
Hunter told Beck that better revenue sharing is a priority, especially if the players are asked to make salary concessions (in the form of the aforementioned constricted pot, a rumored constriction in maximum contract length and a rumored abolition of the mid-level exception). Hunter even advocated for an NFL-style arrangement, which seems extraterrestrial considering the NBA currently redistributes a shilling to football's pound sterling.
As a fan of a small-market team in financial trouble, Hunter's revenue sharing talk is extra sweet. But let's be honest: the threats spilling out in owners' whispers -- salary reductions and the like -- are far more central to union concerns than the sort of forward-looking items Hunter discusses here. If better revenue sharing comes to pass in 2011, it will be as a concession the owners make as a part of a larger restructuring of the system. We won't get revenue sharing without the players losing flesh.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-23-2009 @ 3:17PM
Michael gifford said...
so let me get this straight...the owners are taking a hit due to decreased revenues...and will be wanting to pass some of this hit onto the players in the form of lower salary increases or lowering the market come free agent time...AND the union sees a problem with this??? Why is it, that every time money is around people get stupid? When there's more money, the players want more, which is as it should be since they contribute to that...when there's less money, they still want more??? What's appropriate is that the money rises and falls proportionately with the available money...this way, once the percentages are set...both owners and players are participating in the revenue stream fairly...it goes up we all get more, it goes down we all get less...simple...how stupid does one have to be not to see that? And despite the Latrell Sprewells of the league who believe they can't "feed their family" on less than $14 mil...NONE of the parties involved, owners or players...are 'suffering' financially...if they think so, all they need to do is to go to the unemployment line of all those who are at the mercy of corporate down sizing and ask them how easy it is to feed their kids now and have them go to college...or even as a worker in the field..."Gee, the team wants to offer me less than $7 million per year and that feels disrespectful...should I take it?" and see what kind of answer they get...
Reply
4-23-2009 @ 6:54PM
Martin said...
I see a much larger problem than some short-term decrease in revenues, namely competition from the European leagues. If the European leagues (and the Euro) continue to prosper, I would expect that in a couple of years, they will be in a position to try to sign some of the top NBA players. If they make such an attempt, the current NBA rules (salary cap, luxury cap, and maximum player salary), will prevent the NBA teams from competing for these players' services. And when you have teams in Rome, Paris, London, Madrid, Athens, and other large European cities (with huge financial resources) vying for American players, how well will Sacramento and Memphis be able to compete.
Reply