If the lockout cancels the whole season, who gets more blame: players or owners?

[L.Kizzle]

Owners.

This is a lockout, not a strike.

Some players may need a pay cut, but there is an equal amount that needs a raise. For every Eddie Curry that you feel is overpaid, there is a Derrick Rose that is underpaid.

He's still on his rookie contract.

[97 bulls]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair? And all income is processed on the gross.

Let's say the NBA spends $100 million developing a foreign market, and gets a return of $200 million on that investment. Players would take more than half, meaning the NBA actually loses money. It's counterproductive.
This really makes no sense. No businessman is gonna try to develope a market if its not gonna benefit their own bottom line

Same with staffing: teams have to pay for all staffing costs out of their cut, after the money's been divided. Yet often those staff are for the direct benefit of the player.
This is called a budget. All businesses have one.

I'd be fine with the current percentages if it were worked out after costs, or the players took on a proportionate amount of the cost.

Players get paid far, far too much, for far, far too long.
This is crazy. We live in a capitalistic society. The players get paid according to their market value. What are you a socialists?

Ill tell you why this post fails. In business, your two biggest costs are the actual product your selling and labor. The players in this case are both.

And as I always say, if an owner doesn't like it, walk away from it. The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

I also believe the owners are slowly begining to shoot themselves in the foot. The players are starting to realize they can get paid just as much to play in europe. Its gonna greatly decrease the quality of the nba game in time.

[Joey Zaza]

I tend more towards the owners-side but the owners take more blame, here. They are moving less in negotiations (from reports) and are definitely more willing to lose the season.

Idon't understand the anti-stern sentiment. He is employed by the owners. All he can do is represent their intersts.

[LJJ]

Ill tell you why this post fails. In business, your two biggest costs are the actual product your selling and labor. The players in this case are both.

And as I always say, if an owner doesn't like it, walk away from it. The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

I also believe the owners are slowly begining to shoot themselves in the foot. The players are starting to realize they can get paid just as much to play in europe. Its gonna greatly decrease the quality of the nba game in time.

You are insane if you think the players can bring in 4 billion dollars playing basketball without the NBA.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Idon't understand the anti-stern sentiment. He is employed by the owners. All he can do is represent their intersts.

Because he is so powerful that most owners won't do anything to him? There are 30 owners. You have to get a majority to oust him. He knows that. Let's say you are an owner that wishes he was gone. If you make it public, he will make your life (and your team) miserable. So you will have to get at least 15 more owners to agree with you. That is a daunting task.

So, in essence, Stern is the head of that side.

[2LeTTeRS]

I used to be very pro-Players but the more reading I did and the more time passed I stopped supporting the Players or the Owners; and just starting rooting for the fans. Right now though I'm starting to care less each day about who wins, and worrying more that we are going miss games.

[97 bulls]

He's still on his rookie contract.

Rookie contract or not, he's underpaid. The nba makes a killing off successful rookies through endorsement etc. And they have him for four years. For every rashard lewis, there's a derrick rose or a john wall.

[Apocalyptic0n3]

The fact is the players don't need the owners to play basketball.

No, you're right. They can play basketball without the owners. Can they make major money without them, though? Nope. Ask the guys in the And1 tour or similar. They make enough to support themselves, but definitely not what the NBA players make. Face it: neither can exist without the other. The players are the owners' product, the owners are the players' development staff and marketing team. The two are codependent on each other.

And, honestly, the split is messed up. It should be 50-50... after all wages are paid out to the support staff. There is no reason why the owners are solely paying for the staff wages when the players directly benefit from these people (most of them at least. The owners benefit indirectly from all of them).

Also, can we end the "are you socialist" bullshit? It's a fallacious statement, for one, and two... it isn't even accurate. There is far more to socialism than redistribution of wealth which is just a simplified portion of the socialist method of economic rule. Socialism, which I do not believe to be as awful as the average person, often fails because of the other things that go into it.

And, really, the redistribution of wealth in the NBA really goes in the favor of the players, who are not the only people that need to be paid (there are 2-3 times as many staff as there are players).

As a general rule of thumb, your employees' salary should hover in the 25-35% of revenue range. The NBA is paying almost double that right now, not including insane benefits that your average employer (who pays 25-35%) does not have to deal with such as private planes, meals, hotels, support facilities, etc. that are paid for out of the 43% the owners currently get of the revenue.

Honestly, forget about changing the split. Make the players pay for their training and coaching staffs (arena, managerial, scouting, marketing, etc. should still be an owner expense) as well as all those fringe benefits and I am sure the owners would be 100% okay with keeping the current split. At that point, the split would end up being about 50%.

[bagelred]

Guys, the owners take on 100% of the risks involved, and get less than 50% of the reward? How is that fair?

Ignoring the fact that the owners are BILLIONAIRES and the players MILLIONAIRES.......the owners OWN THE TEAM. That means, regardless of whether the income statment shows profit or loss that year, the owners get 100% of all the valuation increases of the sports franchise. This usually averages about 10% a year and pretty much never goes down over the long haul.

What do the players own? ZERO! They are laborers just like you and me....although high salaried laborers. The moment they can't play ball, they have zero value to show for it. Owners own the franchise, which keeps going up and up and up.

So really, there's very little "risk" per se, unless you believe the human race will stop caring about and watching sports......doubtful.


Let's put it this way...if the players started a new league tomorrow.....what would YOU watch....the NBA teams with scrubs? Or this new league with Kobe, Lebron, Durant, etc.?.........in NBA, the players matter, not the franchises.

[97 bulls]

You are insane if you think the players can bring in 4 billion dollars playing basketball without the NBA.

Why wouldn't they? They are the product. In no way shape or form do they need a bunch of old guys to play basketball. And as a fan, I don't care who runs the team. Ponly who's on the court. Ill never pay to see a bulls game cuz jerry reinsdorf owns the team. Or watch it for that matter.

[All Net]

Owners easily

[LJJ]

Why wouldn't they? They are the product. In no way shape or form do they need a bunch of old guys to play basketball. And as a fan, I don't care who runs the team. Ponly who's on the court. Ill never pay to see a bulls game cuz jerry reinsdorf owns the team. Or watch it for that matter.

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.

[Math2]

Ignoring the fact that the owners are BILLIONAIRES and the players MILLIONAIRES.......the owners OWN THE TEAM. That means, regardless of whether the income statment shows profit or loss that year, the owners get 100% of all the valuation increases of the sports franchise. This usually averages about 10% a year and pretty much never goes down over the long haul.

What do the players own? ZERO! They are laborers just like you and me....although high salaried laborers. The moment they can't play ball, they have zero value to show for it. Owners own the franchise, which keeps going up and up and up.

So really, there's very little "risk" per se, unless you believe the human race will stop caring about and watching sports......doubtful.


Let's put it this way...if the players started a new league tomorrow.....what would YOU watch....the NBA teams with scrubs? Or this new league with Kobe, Lebron, Durant, etc.?.........in NBA, the players matter, not the franchises.

If the players don't want to play on the owners terms, fine. I'd just start the league without the marquee players and just have scrubs until the stars come back and work on the owners terms. No reason for the players to have the leverage. The NBA should start the year with everyone who joins the on the owners terms. They won't like it overseas...

[Math2]

Why wouldn't they?

They are completely free to do so. So if they could, why aren't they? Why are they wasting time trying to negotiate with the owners, when they could start up their own league right now, and as you say make 4 billion dollars?

They don't because they could never make that amount of money without the current NBA organisation. Not anywhere close to it.

They aren't SMART enough to form a league themselves...they COULDN'T get arenas because, amazingly, the owners may own major parts of it.

[97 bulls]

No, you're right. They can play basketball without the owners. Can they make major money without them, though? Nope. Ask the guys in the And1 tour or similar. They make enough to support themselves, but definitely not what the NBA players make. Face it: neither can exist without the other. The players are the owners' product, the owners are the players' development staff and marketing team. The two are codependent on each other.
The and 1 players aren't anywhere near as talented as the nba players. Come on.

And, honestly, the split is messed up. It should be 50-50... after all wages are paid out to the support staff. There is no reason why the owners are solely paying for the staff wages when the players directly benefit from these people (most of them at least. The owners benefit indirectly from all of them).

Also, can we end the "are you socialist" bullshit? It's a fallacious statement, for one, and two... it isn't even accurate. There is far more to socialism than redistribution of wealth which is just a simplified portion of the socialist method of economic rule. Socialism, which I do not believe to be as awful as the average person, often fails because of the other things that go into it.

And, really, the redistribution of wealth in the NBA really goes in the favor of the players, who are not the only people that need to be paid (there are 2-3 times as many staff as there are players).

As a general rule of thumb, your employees' salary should hover in the 25-35% of revenue range. The NBA is paying almost double that right now, not including insane benefits that your average employer (who pays 25-35%) does not have to deal with such as private planes, meals, hotels, support facilities, etc. that are paid for out of the 43% the owners currently get of the revenue.

Honestly, forget about changing the split. Make the players pay for their training and coaching staffs (arena, managerial, scouting, marketing, etc. should still be an owner expense) as well as all those fringe benefits and I am sure the owners would be 100% okay with keeping the current split. At that point, the split would end up being about 50%.
This is fine. But why do they need the owners again? It seeems to me the only thing the players need from the owners is the actual nba and team and unifrom names. You still havnt produced anything to show the owners real contribution past money. Which is generated through the players talent.

I got a question for you, what percentage of a budget is dedicated to the actual product a business sales?