Comments on: Players union: Salaries are not too high

By: Matthew C. Kriner

Matthew C. Kriner — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:52:50 +0000

hey people just thought id drop a comment here i really liked the site and the infor was great just what i needed, i usually hang around bontraade forum which i find really usefull.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:51:19 +0000

You are completely missing the point of your own article. You mentioned ‘capitalism’ – that’s exactly the point here. Owners should be able to pay players whatever amount they want, and whatever the ‘market’ sets that amount to be. THATS what real capitalism is.
The union representing the NBA players try their best to prevent that from happening. In fact, the whole concept of unions is very socialist, it’s just that they’re needed so that owners don’t take advantage of employees in certain situations. But NBA players, who are on average multi-millionaires, arent exactly needing of unions.
If teams are losing money, and they make a decision to cut employees’ wages – how is that un-capitalist? All (non-unionized) companies do this all the time; in fact, I wouldnt be surprise if NBA teams cut salaries for their own non-player employees.
You may think that cutting salaries is a bad decision, but to call it uncapitalist displays utter naiveity of what capitalism really is.

By: Mo

Mo — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:48:35 +0000

I like how Darryl Morey put it. He said he would prefer no limits on contracts because it gives the smartest management teams an advantage over the worse ones.
The Magic Johnson $25 M for 25 years was ginormous back in its day and is against the rules now. But I bet if you ask Jerry Buss if it was worth it, he’d tell you to stop asking stupid questions.

By: Amin

Amin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:38:24 +0000

Well put, by you and by Fish. That being said, if some rule does go into effect limiting player salaries, I hope they call it the Dampier Rule.