As the NBA lockout wears on, David Stern suddenly looks more optimistic than his union rivals. What's that tell us about how things are really going? Also, how we can blame George W. Bush for all of these lockouts.
Want The Hook delivered to your Facebook News Feed daily? Like SB Nation NBA.
Oct 3, 2011 - One of the biggest questions coming out of the weekend NBA lockout talks -- other than where Ben Gordon buys his business-casual hoodies -- was why NBA commissioner David Stern seemed so optimistic compared to players' union officials. Stern, one of the most dour men you'll ever see in the wild, puffed up the positives from the talks, even saying that the two sides were "closer than they were before." (How's that for exceeding modest expectations?) But Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher from the National Basketball Players Association were far less willing to assign progress to the talks. Hunter noted that the sides remained "miles and miles apart" and said that the league hadn't proposed anything the union could agree to.
On a specific topic, Stern claimed he had union buy-in on the league's revenue sharing plan on Friday; by Saturday, Hunter was telling the media that the revenue sharing pitched by owners was "insignificant." (It reminds of Stern once calling $100 million in salary rollbacks offered by the union "modest.") They can't even agree if they have solved one of the three major problems they are trying to solve! This is the lockout, folks.
But it begs the question: why? Why is Stern indicating progress while the union's leadership runs from the idea of optimism? What's in this for each side?
The answer is complicated by both sides potentially being accurate. You can be "closer than you were before" and still be "miles and miles apart." Stern and Hunter aren't lying. They are just choosing to focus on different realities. It's odd for Stern to embrace the optics of hope when he needs the union to continue to cave, lest the season's grave be dug. Fear-mongering is a typical tactic of negotiators with the calendar-based upper hand, which Stern and the league clearly have. Instead, Stern's leaving that to Hunter.
Is Hunter setting expectations low on purpose because he knows he'll have to go to the union with a crummy deal as a last-chance option to get the season started? Is he making success look so impossible so that when a deal does come through, the players will just be glad to get one? Is he still worried about agents sticking their noses into the proceedings and agitating for insurrection, thus needing to make a deal look bleak until the last possible moment?
Is he just being honest?
If so, why is Stern projecting progress? Does he want to give the impression that the league is willing to compromise, if only the players would join them? That'd seem to be the most likely answer: in a situation in which fan angst will soon reach a fever pitch, it's best to look like you're actually doing something. By exuding just a bit of optimism, Stern paints himself and his team in a positive light. For once, he's not the dour one. He's the one bringing the hope.
Whatever the case, the divergent self-presentations by the most important characters in this narrative are not going unnoticed. We'll see where this takes us going forward. I'd love nothing more than to drop the questions because, hey!, a deal is done.
Since 1995, the four major American sports leagues has had four work stoppages. Every single one has been an owner-directed lockout. Three have come since President George W. Bush took office in 2001, one for each of the NHL (2004-05), NFL (2011) and NBA (2011-?). Before the turn of the millennium, player strikes were as or more common than league lockouts. The year 1994 featured an NHL lockout and an MLB strike; the NHL's players held a strike in 1992, the NBA had lockouts in 1995 and 1998-99 and the NFL had strikes in 1982 and 1987. But in this decade? All lockouts, no strikes.
Is this just a random turn of events, as unions signed deals that become more favorable as pro sports revenue exploded in the new age of TV money? Perhaps. Or, with the American wealthy making unprecedented gains during the age of Bush economics, team owners are pressing for more.
I know that Bush has been out of office for almost three years now, but the bulk of his economic policy -- the shifting of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class -- remains in place due to any number of reasons, not the least of which is the Republican majority in the House. How funny that each pro sports lockout since 2001 has been about shifting wealth upwards, billionaires asking millionaires for more. Is the renaissance of American greed to blame for all of these lockouts? If we continue, as a nation, to use kid gloves on the ultra-wealthy, will this continue unabated? (Thankfully, the NHL seems to have worked out its issues, MLB has been at labor peace for years and the NFL signed a 10-year agreement with no opt-out clauses. The NBA alone is at risk. Awesome.)
It's impossible to know for sure whether the relationship between national economic and tax policy has an impact on team owners' drive for more wealth, but it's too clean a coincidence to ignore.
The Hook runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
6 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
No Change
Obama extended tax cuts for the wealthy as well. So if you’re going to name names, don’t forget to give credit where it is due. He may try and talk a different game (on taxes, bailouts, and war), but he’s exactly the same, still re-paying the military and banking cartels.
Really, the point being missed in the discussion is the artificially-inflated assets that plagues not only banks, homeowners, and portfolios, but also sports franchises. Everyone lived beyond their means in a debt-infused bubble, and team owners (like everyone else with artificially-inflated assets that are depressing to more realistic values amidst more money-printing) are trying to minimize losses. Everyone’s going to have to take a loss. And I mean everyone, no matter how much the Fed prints. Yes, greed is a part of it, but greed always exists, and it is exacerbated by the widespread speculation that hits fever pitch during artificial bubbles. Some owners bought at the peak of this bubble. Sucks for them. Some players are expecting similar salaries they had during the bubble. Sucks for them. This isn’t Bush economics. It’s fiat-money/fractional-reserve-banking/ponzi-schemes economics. It’s been going on before Bush took office, and it continues to plague our system while Obama is in office. Bush was a statist tyrant, but if you’re going to name names, remember Obama is exactly the same. Naming it “Bush Economics” really is typical Democrat-subterfuge that no-so-subtly tries to paint the statist Republicans as the problem, when they’re both the problem.
My swag was phenomenal.
by se7en on Oct 3, 2011 11:10 AM EDT reply actions
Lockout/Strike Union-League Management Pain
We are feeling the same business pain we felt when NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA closed down for “labor strife” problems now (Obama) as we felt under Bush and Clinton and who ever else was in office in the past. For small businesses who work for the Leagues…..who (now) cannot plan, are laying off people and taking a financial cold bath due to the current strife———- not much has changed from the last time(s) around.
The League and Union will eventually resolve their differences, but they leave a wake of financial destruction for people (some 1000 in NBA related jobs laid off so far) and sports related businesses.
by Disgusted Fans on Oct 3, 2011 12:37 PM EDT reply actions
I was watching
Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus last week at Energy Solutions Arena in SLC and my heart went out to the vendors who, come November, will be screwed out of revenue they should get, all because players don’t want to lose 11 percent in revenues, 50-50 simple as that get it done, they need each other
Brad James
Follow me on Twitter
With Coach Zorro on our side, we will slice opponents to ribbons. Tim Tebow gives me hope and I already have faith and charity in my heart! I see a propitious future rife with Lombardis for our Broncos!
by the new Bradfather on Oct 3, 2011 4:42 PM EDT reply actions
Sure
the players could just say yes to everything the owners want and the vendors will get to work. But by the same token, the owners could simply say yes to the significant givebacks the players union has offered.
I mean, the owners locked out the players because they want a better deal for them. The players have offered to cut that percentage from 57 to 53. The owners say no. I agree that it’s sad for those vendors, but either side could capitulate and the vendors will get paychecks. The players have already offered capitulation from the current deal. The owners haven’t.
So it’s kind of like a mugger saying “If you would only give me your wallet, this issue of me holding a gun to your head would go away, and you’d be home right now. Why can’t you be reasonable?”
Get The Frickin' Rebound
by fuhry on Oct 3, 2011 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions
What you say is sensible
and accurate, I really don’t think the owners want a season because the NBA doesn’t make money like the NFL does. The NFL lockout angered me, but eventually I knew things would get done. The NBA is anything but a sure thing
Brad James
Follow me on Twitter
With Coach Zorro on our side, we will slice opponents to ribbons. Tim Tebow gives me hope and I already have faith and charity in my heart! I see a propitious future rife with Lombardis for our Broncos!
by the new Bradfather on Oct 3, 2011 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Gutsy move
Bringing politics into the discussion. I feel the same way – there is a sense of entitlement in the wealthier classes these days which seems like an attitude of inherent superiority, and any attempt to regulate it through democratic majority action is considered by them to be some grave injustice.
If the team owners make a bunch of dumb decisions, it’s not the players’ or the fans’ responsibility to compensate for that. But it seems like the owners think it is. And it is kind of a microcosm for what’s going on in the country.
Bush may be a poster boy for that kind of kleptocracy, but Obama and the Dems saved the banks from their own stupid decisions. And that just fuels the sense of entitlement. So we’ll see how this plays out in the NBA. I want a season, but I think the owners need to be knocked down a peg as well.
Get The Frickin' Rebound
by fuhry on Oct 3, 2011 5:02 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed