And by the way, I’d say 80% of the players don’t make $1 million a year after taxes. These lockouts (NBA and NFL) are not millionaires vs. billionaires. It’s hundred-thousand-aires vs. hundred-millionaires.

Somebody is paying for all that stuff. Why shouldn’t it be paid for by the money that comes into the league? Why should the owners foot the bill for everything from their pockets instead of at the very least splitting it like everyone else does? Seems a bit unfair to expect the owners to just pay for all this stuff out of their share doesn’t it?

“the past practices of the industry and the shop—is equally a part of the collective bargaining agreement although not expressed in it”

Whenever players ask for more money in a CBA, people that sound a lot like you complain that “the players are being greedy” but if your rationale for the owners demanding an almost 10% giveback (since at least 10 owners didn’t even like the 50-50 deal) is that each CBA should be negotiated from scratch, then it shouldn’t matter what the player’s ask for, should it? I mean, their position should be seen as starting from scratch too.

And all of this mention of ancillary costs (ie your mention of arena costs, concessions, etc) is redundant as that is taken out before we even get to the BRI divide. The reason why in most professional sports (and entertainment in general, look at the music and movie industries) the players a large chunk of the pie is because a) they are both PRODUCT and EMPLOYEE, and they have a skill set that is not easily replicated in the general public. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have owners paying them millions of dollars a season ‘just to play a game’ and movie studios wouldn’t pay actors millions of dollars per movie ‘just to pretend to be someone else for a while’.

If the owners could create a league with a couple of Jo Schmos out there on each team and pay them peanuts, they would. But they can’t, it’s not a compelling product. And just as no one is going to pay a dozen dollars to watch a movie with a couple of kids fresh out of film school who can’t act, no one is going to pay for an NBA product with terrible talent. Just because the NBA currently has a monopoly on professional basketball currently, doesn’t mean the players have to accept whatever deal the owners feel the players deserve, that’s why they’re negotiating.

Also, for people who claim to be free market, I see a lot of owner-supporters bordering on socialism with what they expect the players to take. Basically saying that the players need to ensure the owners make a profit, even if like Jordan’s Bobcats, terrible front office decisions ruin the team. The point of capitalism, in this case a professional sports team is not to ENSURE you make a profit no matter how terribly you do,

Oh and answer this question Chris, why did the owners originally want to tie BRI to individual endorsements that players signed? If the players did advertisements themselves what right would the league have to those monies?

This whole lockout episode is about a cadre of owners (who apparently are supposed to represent the best of what capitalism has to offer) running small market teams into the ground and want to be rewarded for their terrible basketball management skills. Basically, they want to be bailed out.

Wonder if Kurt misses his old gig, reading these guys every day…yikes…

I remember last year, when I bought NBA League Pass Broadband. It was awesome. Streaming video every night of the owners doing their thing: greasing politicians, running meetings, cutting checks, making deals. Captivating stuff; gets me out of my chair every night.

And the information below from Forbes.com? Has to be wrong–just a parody piece:

___________________________________________________________

No player in the 64-year history of the National Basketball Association has come close to having the immediate and profound impact that LeBron James had when he bolted the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat this summer. The King’s move accounted for both the biggest gain and drop in team values: the Heat’s worth increased 17%, to $425 million (seventh among the NBA’s 30 teams), and the Cavaliers plummeted 26%, to $355 million (15th).

The Heat sold out their season ticket inventory for the 2010-11 campaign after four straight years of attendance declines. Ticket prices are going up next year and ratings for Heat games on Sun Sports, the Fox-owned regional sports network, have doubled this season.
__________________________________________

The fact is that there is no reason why the owners should pay salaries of more than 50%, after expenses, of all the basketball related income that comes into the league. Period.

The owners pay for everything, from the uniforms, to the arenas, to the food and drink, to the travel arrangements, to the medical benefits, to the marketing, to the office staff selling tickets, to the freaking mascot and dancers for crying out loud. Why the hell should they give the lion’s share of the revenue to the players in their paychecks????

50% of the NET BRI is more than fair. Period. Anything more is pretty ridiculous. And anyone who sides with the players getting more than 50% of the NET BRI is being a little bit ridiculous.

Anyone want to tell me why the players deserve more than 50% of the NET BRI when they don’t pay for a single thing they need to do their jobs?