Mr. Stern: where does it say that all NBA teams have to make a profit?

[magicmanfan]

I don't understand why every freakin' team in the league has
to make a profit? Which seems to be the stance the league has
taken.....

In the old days, struggling teams were sold and the new owners
were responsible for improving the situation... Now it seems like
the owners want guaranteed profits, no matter what type of
product they put on the floor...

That's wrong IMO.

I do think players salaries have risen too fast, but that's the
owner's fault, they gave the fat contracts out..... Now they want
the players to give up hundreds of millions of dollars when it
was the owners who created the problem? That's BS.

[iamgine]

Not really. If the profit is guaranteed, then they can focus on creating a champion.

Hard cap, profit sharing. That's the way to go.

[SourGrapes]

Not really. If the profit is guaranteed, then they can focus on creating a champion.

Hard cap, profit sharing. That's the way to go.

Nothing is stopping them from focusing on creating a champion right now. This has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with owners spending too much on a team because they wanted the glory of team ownership

[InspiredLebowski]

It's not about every team being profitable. It's about 22 teams (allegedly) losing money. When 73% of your league doesn't make money that's a problem.

[AMISTILLILL]

It's a broken business model, dude. Arguing from your perspective is like throwing punches under water.

[Walker]

I do think players salaries have risen too fast, but that's the
owner's fault, they gave the fat contracts out..... Now they want
the players to give up hundreds of millions of dollars when it
was the owners who created the problem? That's BS.

How did the owners create the problem?
Do people seriously not understand the concept "if you don't pay someone will"
The owners are paying these contracts because that's what this system demands, is that really so hard to understand?
How would you like it if your team was never willing to compete for players? They'd be at the bottom of the table year in year out losing every good young player they draft because, IF THEY DON'T PAY SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

Teams are meant to be trying to win the championship right? That entales getting the best players you can. You do that by paying them as much as you possibly can. As the system works now teams are able to pay more than they can really afford.

[SourGrapes]

How did the owners create the problem?
Do people seriously not understand the concept "if you don't pay someone will"
The owners are paying these contracts because that's what this system demands, is that really so hard to understand?
How would you like it if your team was never willing to compete for players? They'd be at the bottom of the table year in year out losing every good young player they draft because, IF THEY DON'T PAY SOMEONE ELSE WILL.

Teams are meant to be trying to win the championship right? That entales getting the best players you can. You do that by paying them as much as you possibly can. As the system works now teams are able to pay more than they can really afford.

There are several teams who don't overpay players to the extent their franchises are harmed. And they are competitive. That is an owner problem.

Another owner problem is paying too much for a team and expecting massive changes as a result. They didn't have to pay that amount. The reason they did is likely because they wanted the benefit and prestige of team ownership

[longtime lurker]

It's not about every team being profitable. It's about 22 teams (allegedly) losing money. When 73% of your league doesn't make money that's a problem.

Agreed, but how much of it is due to the players and how much of it is due to bad management, bad business decisions and maybe some of these markets just can't simply support a basketball team. Problem is the owners are blaming everything on player salaries trying to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

[Sarcastic]

Why was 57% ok in 1999, but now it's not?

[dak121]

Why was 57% ok in 1999, but now it's not?

The economy went to shit.

[ProfessorMurder]

Owning a team is a symbolic 'f*ck you, look at how much money I have', not a way to get richer. People seem to forget that.

If you can't afford to lose a few million, don't buy a f*cking team.

[ProfessorMurder]

It's a broken business model, dude. Arguing from your perspective is like throwing punches under water.

Throwing punches underwater worked pretty well in Top Secret: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRrC6OHTSn0

[RazorBaLade]

In what business does the owner make less money than the employees?

[Sarcastic]

The economy went to shit.

The only thing that has changed is that the interest that owners have to pay has gone up. You see when an owner buys a team, they don't make the entire payment all at once. They spread the payments over several years and pay interest on the loan. What has changed is that the cost of interest is no longer as cheap as it was back in 1999.

But please explain to me why the players should be responsible for the interest payments an owner has to make, but they are not able to receive any of the profit a team makes when the value of the team appreciates in value?

[Sarcastic]

In what business does the owner make less money than the employees?

Steve Jobs makes $1 per year in salary. He is the lowest paid employee at Apple, going by salary.