By Mike Kahn
CBS SportsLine Executive Editor
Nov. 9, 1998

SEATTLE -- Just before seeking refuge in Europe this week from the NBA lockout, Detlef Schrempf expressed concern over the reality of NBA players remaining united in the face of losing an entire season.

After all, he's entering the final year of a five-year, $20 million contract. Money isn't an issue to a bright guy entering the final seasons of his career. Then again, he figures it's worth it to test the waters in Europe should this season never get started.

Detlef Schrempf fears the longer the lockout drags on, the more likely the players will lose their unity. (Allsport)

"Money isn't the issue to me personally," Schrempf said. "I'm working out hard to play a couple more years hopefully. For other guys, there is no money. This is their job and if they have a lot of bills, they could have a lot of problems, fast."

National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter has said repeatedly the NBPA has sources of money coming from the union cash reserves, plus those from the unions of pro football, hockey and baseball.

BUT HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH TO compensate for the lost income of an NBA player? The rank and file certainly won't get six-figure incomes but may have six-figure size bills to pay. As each day passes, the prospect of a lost season -- that was implausible before -- becomes more of a possibility.

How did this happen?

"Simple," NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik said. "Everyone agreed if the basketball-related income reached 51.8 percent we could re-open the agreement and negotiate one that works. Now they're asking for 60 percent. Does that make sense?"

Of course not. Now the owners have decided on a 50-50 split of the basketball related income and the players are furious. The 10 percent difference of opinion is a vital reason why talks have broken down

The key is the superstars do not want limitations on contracts. They haven't had them in the past due to the Larry Bird exception that allowed teams to exceed the salary cap for their own players. They don't want to lose that. The latest proposal from the NBA allows for the Bird exception with a ceiling based on years of service.

Present superstars like Michael Jordan ($33 million), NBPA president Patrick Ewing ($20.5 million) and David Robinson ($12.4 million) have benefited greatly from the Bird exception. They, like the great players of the past, feel a sense of obligation to the future superstars and their capability to make unlimited dollars.

THE OWNERS ARGUE REVENUES WILL be climbing so fast anyway, even with a ceiling the players will be making tens of millions of dollars. That is true, however, the players don't want all the conditions the owners are laying on dollar value.

The players contend they are the product.

The owners answer with, yeah, but it's our money.

NBA commissioner David Stern has his own viewpoint on why the players are reluctant to commit, despite obvious millions in the balance.

"What I said earlier is that we believe with good reason that the agents of players who would be most affected by the high-end limitation have begun a campaign to defeat any fair deal," Stern said. "And their view is that no matter how good the deal may be for 400 players, it won't be allowed to fly if the top 30 can't have the ability to receive unlimited amounts.

"We're concerned that this entire arrangement and deal is going to be held hostage by that attitude."

The potential of that being true grows stronger every day because the owners truly don't have to play this season despite the distinct damage to the product. They still will earn the annual money from the four-year, $2.64 billion television contract this year, but they will have to pay it back over the lifetime of the contract.

"The terms haven't been decided," Granik said. "But it's there and it has to be paid back."

Nonetheless, the money will be in hand for the owners and the ability to pay it back will come from revenues of the next three years that will continue to escalate.

MEANWHILE, THE PLAYERS ARE LOSING $14 million for every game lost, Granik said, and they won't get that back. As for the owners' proposal, use Scottie Pippen as an example.

Underpaid last year at $2.775 million after waiting five years for this, his free-agent summer, Pippen -- with more than 10 years of service -- can earn 35 percent of the salary cap to start his salary. If the cap grows to $30 million (which is 15 percent above last season based on the new television contract), that means he would get $10.5 million his first year and 10 percent growth after that, which will average just less than $13 million over five years. And there was another portion of the proposal that would allow 10-year players to start at $12 million in their first year, plus 10 percent.

So the money doesn't compare to the $17 million to $33 million of recent years, but it still is a ton of money to the upper class. The key here is the middle class. No players with 10 years of experience would earn less than $1 million and the minimum would be $350,000 plus $50,000 for every year beyond five years in the league.

To reiterate Schrempf's perspective, when does it become the law of diminishing returns for the majority of the players to sit out with that kind of money on the table? Soon enough, the players who aren't financially secure may begin to break ranks if put to a vote.

"It's a decision the young guys have to make," Schrempf said. "To the old guys, it doesn't matter as much. They have to decide what they're happy with and how much money is enough for them. Right now, nobody is making anything."

Except the owners.