Yeah endorsement money drops off pretty solidly outside of maybe 20 players is my bet.
Yep. Then MJ broke the entire structure when he came back from baseball and demanded $30+ per year. The system hasn't truly made sense since.
And we've tried universal health Care and made exceptions for it almost immediately. Not worth trying again amiright?
Actually the players have very little to do with any of what you are talking about, other than the player's Union in negotiating the CBA. It's the proliferation of money and the profit sharing from the most recent CBA's that are really driving the parity issues. The players are taking full advantage, and you really can't blame them for taking what is given. That is why we need to here better control over the money to help drive better parity.
I'm not a professional cap-ologist but I've built my career on finding better ways to do things, especially when people say it can't be done. I'm sure there are other ways to look at it, even if it's a semi-hard cap. Maybe a tiered cap, or a stiffer luxury tax, maybe stronger incentives for longevity, for both the players and the franchise. I'm sure we could toss around a dozen ideas for other ways to approach it. But saying "welp it didn't work in the 80's" is just kind of lazy thinking.
Every money model carries risk, it's just the nature of money and business. The question is, can we find one that minimizes those risks while maximizing the benefits, again the very foundation of all business. Look at Amazon, one of the biggest knocks on the company was that every internet venture that didn't turn a profit within 18 months was doomed to fail, but Bezos ran under the revenue growth+market share>profit model, thereby reporting loses for the better part of 2 decades, in chasing revenue and market share, and he turned conventional wisdom on it's head. With the new money the league found a few years ago and the new agreements for profit sharing, without understanding the ultimate repercussions to parity, they created the current climate of players dictating where they will play and risking stifling competition in the long run. We need a new money distribution system to re-balance the equation now.
It probably is unlikely, but imo that is more likely to be vetoed by the players than the owners. A version of a hard cap would help owners control cost in the long run, since it could eliminate discussions around luxury tax and give them a known payroll. But it would also limit money to the players somewhat, which the players Union would vote against every time. And in the end anything like this has to go through both groups, so obviously we are just engaging in fan speculation. I don't think a single person here expects the league to do any of these things realistically, it's just what we arm-chair GMs think they should do.
