Blog Entry

Owners absolutely won't go over 50 percent?

Posted on: October 31, 2011 1:46 pm
Posted by Royce Young

The players have dug in. Fifty-three percent of the Basketball Related Income or bust. Repeatedly, negotiations have collapsed on the discussion of BRI with last week's momentum falling apart right at the one-yard line because the players were still set on only going as low at 52.5.

The union's obviously convinced that the owners will finally give in and nudge up the extra couple percent. They feel coming down from 57 to 52.5 covers the owners' losses and gives them the opportunity to be profitable. At least that's what their fancy pants MacArthur "genius" economist says.

Still, the owners aren't budging. At least according to
The players aren't going to get 52, or 51, or 50.5, or 50.000001, and if they hold out for those numbers, they're not going to have a season. You'd have to be crazy not to see that now, so it's this for the players: take the deal this week or next, or lose the season. If they are willing to die on principle, they wouldn't be the first. But they will die, in the metaphorical sense.
At some point the players have to give in because the money lost fighting over a couple percent of BRI won't ever be recouped. They're set to lose those percentage points in a matter of months, and that's for the entire life of the next CBA.

So unless it just becomes a principled matter where players stick to their guns regardless of what the economics say, they'll have to budge.

Or maybe it's all part of the game. Round and round we go.
Category: NBA

Since: Sep 27, 2006
Posted on: October 31, 2011 7:45 pm

Owners absolutely won't go over 50 percent?

I've been saying for months now that the owners are going to have the upper hand in this negotiation, because a number of them are losing money on their NBA teams, and would actually be better off financially if the entire season were cancelled.  A few days ago the stories were all over the place, saying that a deal could be done by the end of the weekend.  Well, the weekend came and went, and no deal was done, because it still comes down to the same issue, splitting up the money. 

Unless the players are willing to go along with a 50-50 split, the reality is, there will not be an agreement.  All the hype, all the optimism, all the hope will not change this.  The owners can afford to dig in their heels, while most of the players cannot.

Since: Oct 24, 2010
Posted on: October 31, 2011 6:57 pm

Owners absolutely won't go over 50 percent?

I dont care enuff about it to write a long post, but I'd like to see SOMEONE take a strong stand against one of the unions rather than the usual cave we usually see. 50/50 sounds more than fair. The heck with all of that "the players are the product" crap; they're also the employees.

Since: Oct 31, 2011
Posted on: October 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Owners absolutely won't go over 50 percent?

Okay, someone show me where the employees can dictate to the business owners that they will give them more than half of the INCOME!!!  We’re not talking profit here, we are talking all the income related to the business (the infamous BRI), and the players demand not an equal split, but more than half of the INCOME.  From what is left, the owners must then subtract the cost of doing business.  The arenas (yes I know many are subsidized by the local governments, but at least my team the owner paid for & built his own arena), the other employees, the cost of transportation, insurance on the players, the utilities for operating those arenas, the scouts, expenses of bringing in draft prospects, insurance, on & on & on.  Let’s not forget the original cost of buying a team, and yes that can be recovered when the team is sold – IF IT IS SOLD.  But until then the business HAS to make a profit.  If it isn’t, are the players going to give back some salaries so that others can keep their jobs – I think not.


And then when the players diminish the value of the product, what recourse do the owners have – none.  Because even when it is as blatant as Vladimir Radmanović violating the terms of his just signed contract by snowboarding (and then lying about it) and injuring his shoulder, or Monta Ellis lying about how he tore a ligament in his ankle (mo-ped accident) the union IMMEDIATELY jumps up and says you can’t do anything to the player, we’ll take it to arbitration.  Let’s not forgot how Vince Carter owned up to the fact that his last playoff series in Toronto he tanked and gave up half way through, before going to the NJ Nets.  Don’t EVEN begin to discuss how watered down the union has made the league’s efforts to combat substance abuse, when that itself affects a player’s performance.  What was the absolute first thing the union DEMANDED that the owners take off the negotiation table – guaranteed contracts had to stay.  Once a player gets a contract, unless he commits a crime (and even then he still gets to retain most of his contract – think Latrell Spreewell here folks) he gets paid for that contract even though he can’t or won’t deliver the goods he agreed to.  People may point to this and say “look how far you had to go back to find an example!”  I look at it as “See how long this behavior has been going on!”


So are the owners playing fast & loose with some of the bookkeeping – maybe.  They’ve opened the books, and there is some discussion about how much is loss and how many teams are actually losing money.  But the playing field has been so uneven in the player’s favor for a LONG time now.  I guess it is just more of their sense of entitlement that they think they can dictate the terms of how the owners will operate their own teams, that they see no reason for the lockout.  But then if I could operate under that sort of system I’d definitely not want it changed either.

Since: Oct 25, 2007
Posted on: October 31, 2011 3:01 pm

Owners absolutely won't go over 50 percent?

Anybody who thinks that Mark Cuban or Paul Allen the Dolan family is going to miss the income from the 2011 NBA season is out of their mind.   The players, other than the relatively few who either have already made big bucks or were smart with their money - probably no more than 10 percent of them - will suffer hugely.  Most of these guys are lucky to have a three or four year career and losing a season means they lose a huge chunk of their one opportunity to set themselves up for life.  The player's union clearly is all about protecting the income of their superstars at the expense of the foot soldiers.    Remarkable how none of the player reps are willing to point that out to their teamates, probably because they know that two thirds of the rosters will be gone in two or three years, replaced with next year's college seniors and the next flavor of the moment from Europe or Asia or South America.  Really, what is so unfair about splitting something 50/50?

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or