By: Martin Rand, III
Date: November 14, 2011
The NBA owners' Wednesday deadline for the National Basketball Players Association to accept the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) proposal has come and gone, with no announcement from the NBPA that they will accept it. Even though the two sides met Thursday and Friday, they couldn't get a deal done and it looks like we won't see any NBA action for a very long time.
 |
| NBPA President Derek Fisher and the rest of the players have the power to stop the lockout, but they continue to choose not to. |
I've read a lot of reports about what's going on at these meetings and what both sides want in the new CBA. Thanks to USAToday.com, I've read the entire owners proposal to the players. From what I can see, the main points of disagreement revolve around:
Of course, both sides have contributed to keeping this lockout extended into the regular season, but which side should hold more stake than the other? To me, the answer is obviously the players.
I'm usually all for the "many" standing up to the "few elite," and I was initially on that stand in this situation as well. But, as time went on, and I began to think about it and hear more about the situation, I realize want the players want out of this deal makes no sense to me.
My main gripe with them is the Basketball Related Income (BRI) split. The NBPA managed to get 57% of the split in the last CBA. The owners say they lost a lot money because of this and they want to reduce the split to 50-50; or have a conditional agreement, where the NBPA receives between 49-51% of the split depending on the amount of revenue generated for that given year.
This seems more than fair. Either both sides get the same amount, or if the league does well, the players get more of the split. Why must this be so hard to compromise on?
But, giving that it's taking so long to agree to this, I'm guessing the NBPA doesn't want either. No, they'd rather put the whole season on hold, or bring it to an end, just to get a guaranteed 51% or 52%.
I saw a report that said each percentage is worth about $13 million dollars, so I understand the difference between the percentages. But, in my mind, I feel like the owners deserve that money more than the players do.
The NBPA wants that extra money to give to their current players and for their future players. But, that's all. The owners have to run an entire league. They have to not only pay the players. They have to pay the coaching staff, front office staff, security guards, concession stands, the electric, water, gas bill and etc. Of course, some of that 1% or 2% will go in the pockets of the owners; but majority of it will actually go to keeping the league running and that's what I agree with it.
Basketball is by far my favorite sport and I really want to see the NBA get back to business; and if agreeing to this current proposal will save a 72-game season, then why not agree to it? America's economy has taken a huge nose-dive since 2005 (when the last CBA was agreed to) and the owners have to keep the league going. Fortunately for the players, they can't just get fired like other people in this country, so just accept the deal.
I hate when I hear players on TV and Twitter say, "we really want to get a deal done so we can get back on the court for our fans sake." No they don't. They want to get a deal that's going to pay them the most money and this is the main reason why the NBA has yet to start.
I see the owners trying to bend over backwards to accommodate the players with more money, guaranteed contracts and more years on contracts; but I don't see that same thing from the players in trying to help the Owners keep the league healthy and make it grow.
If the players really care about playing again, they would get some sense of urgency and realize that the league is in danger. They have to decide what's more important: the growth of the league or the growth of their bank accounts.
The ball is in their court.
| Tweet |
