Fans are being deprived basketball during the NBA lockout. They at least deserve honesty from those taking the sport away.
Aug 25, 2011 - I actually don't ask for much from the league or players' union when it comes to the NBA lockout. I have ideas about how it ought to be resolved in order to help maximize the popularity and sustainability of the league, and I advocate very forcefully for certain aspects. But in the end, the wills that make up the clans of NBA franchise owners and players will dictate a result more than logic will, and that's okay. Give me basketball, and we won't have problems.
But being dishonest with fans to win points in a PR battle that doesn't matter is an awful way to get there. And that's exactly what David Stern was in his now infamous Bill Simmons podcast appearance.
We've written about the appearance a few times; apparently, the show has captured the imagination of players, too. From SI.com's Sam Amick, who talked to union VP and free agent Maurice Evans:
Of course it does rub you the wrong way a little bit when the guy doesn't seem to have a sense of urgency. And then when you hear about his $20 million-plus salary, and he tries to justify it and go on and have an hour-long podcast that you could say is misleading or you could also say lying. Those things are the most disappointing. We had all these meetings, and the guy has yet to come in and truly bargain in good faith. They have yet to truly engage us and work toward getting a deal.
There are two strains of dishonesty that had emanated from NBA talking points -- more specifically, Stern's talking points -- that stand out as egregious. The first is that the NBA identifies its last proposal as one that cuts player salary by only 8 percent. It does cut player salary by 8 percent ... in the 2011-12. But then it essentially freezes it there for a number of years, before allowing a modest increase based on revenue growth. It's decouples player salary from revenue, which is a magnificent shift at the expense of players. So classifying it as an "8 percent pay cut" is a gross misrepresentation of the NBA plan.
Yet, the NBA is sticking to that talking point. From the New York Times' Howard Beck's lockout update:
"While we haven't heard Maurice Evans's remarks, I can confirm that we last proposed $2 billion in total player compensation for next season, an 8 percent reduction from last season," the N.B.A. spokesman Mike Bass said.
That's not a lie ... but it ain't the truth either. It has -- to borrow a phrase -- elements of truthiness. It's not the only point the NBA stretches too thin.
In that Simmons podcast, Stern also presents some measure of disbelief at the union's last proposal, which the commissioner says would increase the average player salary to $7 million in six years. (It's current $5 million.) The union has pointed out repeatedly that the figure cited by Stern -- and previous his deputy Adam Silver -- is based on the most absolutely rosy revenue projections. The union's last proposal cuts the share of revenue dedicated to player salary, but keeps the two items tied together. If revenue sees monstrous growth, so will player salary. The $7 million average salary is what would happen if owners are making money hand over fist. Stern leaves that part out.
Again, it's truthiness. I don't understand why Stern feels the need to mislead the fans. Again, there's no PR war to win. There are PR ramifications, but all Stern can do is hurt the future of his league by reinforcing the nasty stereotype that American pro athletes, and NBA players in particular, are greedy bums. What does Stern get out of lying to fans, other than perhaps some nods of approval from the Rick Reillys of the world? If you aren't going to let us have basketball, at least give us the truth. We can handle it.
LaMarcus Aldridge has flat-out thrived as the Portland Trail Blazers' power forward over the past few seasons, making a great leap in 2011. But might he better help the team as a center? Zach Lowe does some great work to investigate.
The Hook is an NBA column that runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
9 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
Can Stern even tell the truth?
Recently Stern commented on revenue sharing,etc and said he had 30 owners he had to get together. Um,30? Did someone buy New Orleans from the League when we weren’t looking?
Speaking of which,the League claims it’s owners losses spiked this yr,w/22 teams losing money. Wonder how many teams would be losing money if they didn’t have to kick in the $8-10mil to buy and run the Hornets.
Sure was a convenient for the Owners having to buy and run a Franchise in the same yr they needed to show how bad their books were,instead of selling to buyers who might(okay would)move the Franchise.
by Tisbee on Aug 25, 2011 12:25 PM EDT reply actions
If the players want to buy in
on the owner’s risks then that WOULD make for an interesting negotiating point. Bottom line is the owners lost money mainly because of the the current CBA. Guaranteed contracts and 57% off the top are ridiculous.
All of us complain year round about the over priced players with no talent or bad attitudes. When they get called on it by the owners are we rushing to defend them? Am I really supposed to feel sorry for a guy who goes to work in a Bentley?
Not that I feel bad for the owners but trying to right a wrong business wise requires some cuts some where. It is not as if laying off the video coordinator will save a fortune. SO if chronic under achievers only gets offered a minimum salary this time around the league might straighten out the salary mess it is in. SInce the players insist on their guaranteed contracts, they are going to take a healthy pay cut percentage wise.
Stern did bring up a good point. There are over 5000 other employees throughout the league waiting for the other 400 to decide to become millionaires with slightly less money while they try to make ends meet. There are Non Profit Organizations that work these arenas to raise money for their causes. There are thousands of contracted firms and companies waiting for the millionaires to take the inevitable smaller contracts that will allow them to pay their light bills.
"Do not panic, all is well" Kevin Bacon in the parade scene in the movie Animal House
by mjdinhouston on Aug 27, 2011 7:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I read this going..
…good for Mo. I think Mo knows that he’ll get ripped for saying what he said, but at the same time, I don’t think the NBAPA has ever expected to win the PR war on this deal. Lotsa fans can want a hard cap, but a hard cap doesn’t change the NBA much and parity at the top (which is what fans mean by parity—they don’t care about 8th seeds if we’re being honest).
I have yet to see the owners bargain in good faith because, if for no other reason, they don’t have to yet. They aren’t afraid of losing a season yet. The players want to resolve this because they want to get on with their lives. The owners want what they want because they want it.
I want to bring up one point that Evans said that got my spidey sense tingling. One was the escrow point: Teams have gotten back escrow tax for years and years. A lot of teams don’t want to admit that within the own salary structure of the NBA over the life of the previous CBA, every team has gotten back a huge chunk of escrow tax. To the tune of about 26 or 27 million over 5 years (before this year where the owners cut salaries to the point where they aren’t getting that share of escrow). When you add a luxury tax share, teams were getting anywhere from 5-9 million a season (all teams mind you) in rebates from player salaries alone.
If that isn’t a form of revenue sharing, I don’t know what is.
Another point I’d make is that with luxury tax teams get a 1/30th share. For all the squawking about expenses incurred, if that escrow/luxury tax money wasn’t making a dent in those expenses, what will? I’m all for additional revenue sharing, but let’s be honest: Most of this lockout is about owners trying to increase their value of their franchise to either A) cover a bad initial investment B) continue ownership and have it be profitable consistently to retain ownership or C) because it’s never bad business to cut costs whenever possible.
And one more point about luxury tax: It’s not like the NBA doesn’t get a share of that money as is. Not every team gets the tax share (as it is teams only get a 1/30th share—as it should be) and the NBA gets that remainder amount. It’s usually anywhere from 10-20 million for the NBA front office. That’s not a small chunk of cheddar.
I think the NBA owners feel the need to win the PR battle (as you state TZ). And why? Who knows why? The players (or it seems to me the players aren’t in the PR game much) aren’t even fighting that fight, and other than Evans, who leveled serious charges against the bargaining tactics in a reasonable way IMO (I’d say respectful but that isn’t really the point when you’re making an accusation—if you respected the other side you wouldn’t be making accusations in this kind of deal), where as the NBA has made a ton of pre-emptive moves that the players COULD make. The owners are doing everything in their power to get their way and the players aren’t budging.
It’s easy to say that the players would be losing something by taking this to the mattresses in the long run.
But let’s not forget another point: The owners lose value of their franchises with an extended lockout and labor battle. I doubt MSG will be the only one hurting by the end of the lockout. It’s not like fans care one iota about the owners pocketbook or the players for that matter. I know for certain I don’t. I don’t think owner profitability will change one thing about competitiveness. (If let to my own devices, I’d keep the Mid Level & Sign & Trades. I see them as tools that sometimes teams use well and poorly and in between. It’s not the tool that is at fault; it’s the person misusing it.)
As it is, what I do care about is giving the Kings (being a Kings fan) a chance to compete long term, and when you start stripping tools from smaller markets, it’s going to make competing more difficult for these franchises. All the NBA teams need each other and maintaining a strong league throughout will help everyone. Not everyone can win all the time, and championships regardless of what CBA emerges will remain elusive for most franchises due to the nature of the NBA and what not. But, if everyone has an equal opportunity to compete, than I think that’s the best CBA you can ask for. Which, I pretty much think that’s true of the now expired CBA. A few tweaks to the players total BRI and revenue sharing and you’re set.
I’ve sided with the players for one reason: I think they understand and will work to resolve the issue’s. They haven’t talked much about the owners (as much as the owners have about the players) and have generally remained pretty quiet (as people in the public eye can be) about this labor battle. If the players give in on this labor battle, what keeps the owners from doing this again in 10 years?
Hopefully the owners remove their head out of their asses and get with it. Because if they don’t, they will have attained hundreds of millions of dollars for loans for franchises that might be worth half that if their is a prolonged labor stoppage. I think the owners feel they’re unified, but I believe they are not. I believe the owners are fractured and that’s why you’ve seen the preemptive desperate ploys made by the NBA/ownership to keep the players from decertifying and the media hits by David Stern.
The owners are doing themselves and the NBA in the long run a disservice by pushing a very silly agenda. The players are left caught in the middle due to the fans expecting them to cave (which won’t happen) and negotiating with a group of people who pay their paychecks. No enviable position to be in for sure.
If there is a prolonged lockout, I blame Stern and the owners 100%. As it is though, in July and August it’s only posturing and in the long run means nothing. On August 25th none of this stuff really matters. If we’re talking about this 30 days from now, than it’s a major problem. The problem with so much empty space is that something has to fill that space, and posturing to get what you want (rather than what you’d accept) is about the only way a negotiation of this magnitude will take place. Hopefully a negotiation actually takes place soon because there is no point in destroying an entire league for what you want.
If I’ve learned anything, apocalypses are rarely likely to happen. Especially when each side has way too much to lose. Thus I’m optimistic that a deal can be reached, but not if the knuckleheads like Sarver,. Grousbeck (who is a flat out charlatan attempting to cry poor) and Gilbert (who gets to own lucrative casinos in Cleveland!).
The owners have only accomplished one thing: I now am on the verge of despising them in every fashion if they push a prolonged lockout. As it is, I don’t like them. But if an extended lockout happens, I might quit paying for NBA stuff on principle due to not wanting to give any money to the NBA. I might do that for the entire life of the CBA, and I hate doing that. It makes life hard. But if the NBA forces my hand…….
I can guarantee one thing: I’ll have no problem supporting piracy of a flawed product if the owners push a bad lockout. Because if the owner don’t respect me as a fan to push an awful lockout, why should they expect me to pay for a product that they think they have me by the balls (which they don’t) to purchase?
These last 2 paragraphs are exceptionally flawed logic and not even one I necessarily agree with. But that’s exactly the fan equivalent to the owners lockout. In the long run, there are no winners. Have I mentioned that I hate this lockout?
- – - -
By the way, if you’ve read this entire thing, I’m mocking the NBA’s negotiating policy. I could have stated this in a much less complicated and a lot less obtuse fashion, not to mention shorter, but I took the long way around to make it as obtuse and obtrusive to the point as possible. That’s been the entire NBA objective with regards to the lockout up to this point. And, as TZ says, it’s exceptionally infuriating. Just make a fucking deal already.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Aug 25, 2011 3:02 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Hey Buddy
Good arguments as usual. But I thought the escrow money that was given back was money taken from individual player salaries in case of revenue shortfalls that was returned to the players individually, not to the teams. I gathered it was an 8% (I believe) holdback, am I wrong?
I do think that if the owners are really trying to make a case for a 30 team league surviving and being as competitive as possible across the board, they probably do need to release at least the outlines of a true revenue sharing agreement. Even though that might give the players additional ammunition.
But, If the owners really want to win the PR war, outlining how some of the savings would go back to the fans in the form of reduced ticket prices would all but end the impasse. Stern admitted in that now infamous podcast that he thought tix prices were ‘high’. If they proved (or, well, demonstrated) to the fans that this fight was about Them?
Game over
Hey, call me if you come to town.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Aug 25, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
2 things here lttg
1) Escrow was returned to the players because total salary to players for the 2010-11 season was short of 57%. Additionally, there was also 26 million to even out the compensation. That’s how much team management and/or owners cut salaries in order to play in the summer of 2010.
2) In previous seasons, player compensation was well north of 57% and thus teams got the escrow taxes. Either way you slice it, players get 57% of the revenue pie. If it goes over, the players give it back to the owners. If it goes under that figure, that money goes back to the players (as was the case for this past season).
I’m trying to get back for Xmas. So if I do make it, I’ll certainly call ya.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Aug 25, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Forget to address the % issue's
According to Coon’s FAQ, that % has gone down over time. And the bigger issue isn’t necessarily how much the players put in escrow, but who is getting it. Your first paragraph is sort of correct in that it’s designed to address a shortfall, but wrong in the sense that it exists for money going to the players. The escrow, as I understand it, is just designed to address the inequity of how much each side is getting towards their percentage. When one side gets more than their percentage, they give it to the other side. Even though the players have typically given up the escrow to the owners, when the owners show restraint as they have, it will go to the players.
As far as that particular podcast, I think much of it was hogwash any way you slice it. It was there to slander the players as much as possible without legally slandering them.
As far as ticket prices, I don’t think anybody is stupid enough to believe that lowering player expenses will lower ticket prices. That’s market based and always will be. Would Stern like ticket prices to be lower? Sure, he probably would. But that’s always going to be an owner prerogative and no more or less. There is little Stern can do about that particular issue as commish.
No mistakes in the tango, Donna. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
by pookeyguru on Aug 25, 2011 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions
If I lost $25 million
when my team plays how bad could it be if they do not? Its not as if laying off the security guard on the night shift will save all that much. Arenas also turn concerts and other events away because of the basketball season. Some of that revenue can be made up. Places like MSG will not have to share revenue this year.
Agreed that billionaires arguing with millionaires is silly but when we talk hundreds of millions in losses we are talking serious green. Not that the owners will personally feel it but they are smart enough to run their franchises as a business and to try and break even. But if I am one of those teams losing a bunch of money, my only fear is that my team becomes irrelevant in my city.
The bottom line is the fans lose the most in the lockout followed by the players.
"Do not panic, all is well" Kevin Bacon in the parade scene in the movie Animal House
by mjdinhouston on Aug 27, 2011 8:05 AM EDT up reply actions
This is the essence of the whole lockout story.
The NBA wouldn’t exist without fans.
The masses are the driving force behind every form of consumption. But the masses can’t talk, so there you have it.
A bunch of zillionaires manipulating the whole scene, trying to make even more money, while about 400 young spoiled players don’t appreciate the fact that they get paid millions for playing with a ball.
Both sides have completely forgotten the one thing that counts: the fans. Without them this game wouldn’t have any value. I would love to take sides and support the players but even that is ridiculous.
Bleeding Black and Purple 6710 miles South East of Sacramento.
by ZenBaller on Aug 25, 2011 4:00 PM EDT reply actions
It's not like Stern has a history of being totally above board.
The whole SuperSonics fiasco was a perfect example of his “truthiness.” Until Stern is fired or steps down, don’t expect any real honesty from the commissioners office.
by TJDirk on Aug 27, 2011 5:48 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed