Skip to content

Former NBA union head no fan of decertification strategy

Nov 18, 2011, 12:05 PM EDT

lock AP

A couple months back when PBT spoke with Charles Grantham, former head of the National Basketball Players Association — the players union that is now the players trade association — he said that there were some hills worth dying on for players in these labor talks. Things like guaranteed contracts or the owners’ idea of decoupling revenue and the salary cap were issues the players could not give in on.

But there comes a time when it’s about playing basketball if you get those things.

Which is why Grantham told the USA Today he didn’t love the union’s move of dissolving (via a disclaimer of interest) and having the players sue the league on antitrust grounds. He thinks the union is missing the big picture.

“I certainly think the overall players should’ve had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to proceed. … I’m perplexed as to how we go from agreeing to 50% ready to move forward and not recognizing that you can’t get more than that no matter what the system says. When you start talking about missing the season, you have to consider a cost-benefit analysis. How much is it going to cost me as a player to get a system change? Is it worth me losing up to 25% of my salary?

“I’m not certain this move is good for the them. I can see where it’s good for the antitrust attorneys who might be charging as much as $1 million a week in fees or the agents who see that seven-point swing (from 57% to 50% BRI) as adding up over time as quite a bit of money. But it also is money that hasn’t been earned. Theoretically you’re losing that money, but at the same time the pie is bigger and the average salary is increasing.”

Grantham seems to believe — as do I and some agents, as well as the owners — that if David Stern’s last offer had been put to a vote of the players, it would have passed. Not overwhelmingly, but it would have passed. And in the long haul the players would be better off on the courts than in the courts.

Make no mistake, the owners think they can wait the players out, that the players will eventually cave. Stern tried to get a deal that he thought his owners would approve, but he didn’t give the players a way to save face in there. So the players rejected it and went to the courts. Now multiple sources are saying the owners are dug in and going to let the players miss another check or two (Dec. 1 is the day the players would have been paid). They are going to wait out the players.

When you stand back and look at the big picture, you wonder if Grantham isn’t right and the players shouldn’t have voted on the last deal.

  1. idontevenwannaknow - Nov 18, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    If the players do not have the financial resources to hold out on their “system issues” they should have just allowed a vote. With an average salary of 5 million, you would think that they could at least put a little amount of money aside. How many people in this country live on 20k or less a year? A lot. If they have blown though a ridiculous amount of money, I would appreciate no sob, feel bad for the players stories about how they don’t have any money and they can’t miss a paycheck. I would doubt that would win any sympathy from the fans. When these players complain about not being able to put food on their table, that is when they really start to concede the PR battle.

  2. elcomandanteenjefe - Nov 18, 2011 at 1:40 PM

    Unfortunately, the common sense and business analysis that Mr. Grantham brings to the table is something that is significantly lacking in Billy Hunter and the self serving interests of the agents.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Will LeBron get booed Christmas Day in Miami?
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. K. Love (3760)
  2. D. Rose (3204)
  3. T. Young (2527)
  4. K. Bryant (2454)
  5. L. James (2436)
  1. K. Irving (2295)
  2. A. Davis (1916)
  3. G. Hayward (1839)
  4. R. Allen (1767)
  5. E. Bledsoe (1713)