I don't disagree with the axing guaranteed contracts. However it does not solve the financial angle if the owner's are still paying the same amount to the players overall.
But they won't. Players (as individuals) should still have the opportunity to earn what they can now. 57% is the minimum the players CAN receive (
https://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q8), but if teams are actually losing a 1/3 of a billion dollars annually (they aren't), then there's no way it's just 57%.
Not sure I follow. My understanding is that whatever percentage of player share that is in place (57% or otherwise) is the minimum of what the players get no matter what, whether there are contract guarantees or not.
Also, it seems that you're being an apologist for the players. Not sure why. 57% is above the player take among all major sports. While it is true that the owners were the ones that negotiated and allowed such a lavish share for the players, that doesn't mean it should continue. Congratulations to those players who benefitted from being overpaid (more than usual) during the previous CBA. Now the economy is worse (and isn't getting notably better anytime soon), many owners aren't making money (and that's true no matter what version of financial statements you use). Your mention of the estimated 60% true player take further bolsters the notion that the solution ought to include a cut in the player take by several percentage points.
As I have described before, revenue sharing--in the unlikely event that the profitable teams would even agree to it--would likely subsidize the unprofitable teams to the tune of $5 million, give or take a few million. While I agree with you and Bill Simmons that it makes sense that the NBA should have it just like the NFL does, it's shouldn't have to be the primary change, given that the player share (57%) is excessive relative to the NFL, MLB, etc. Also, the revenue sharing alone might give some cushion to marginally profitable teams with relatively solid fan bases like the Jazz but might not be enough for marginal teams such as SAC, CHA, etc. By contrast, cutting the player share is something that likely benefits all owners.
Numberica said:
If we the people can ever get credible financial statements (I wouldn't count on it), I bet we'd see that players are making upwards of 60%. That is because of guaranteed contracts and annual, guaranteed raises. Cutting out the contract year phenoms and washed up hacks saves a lot of money for a lot of teams. And I'm sure having better play would also increase revenue.
Again, from a financial angle, cutting guaranteed deals (or making them much more rare, say, in a franchise tag role [to be used after a player is set to complete their second [team option-driven] contract and become a UFA) and revenue sharing (50/50?) would go a really long way. Getting the NBAPA to agree to the guaranteed contract angle would be difficult, but not anymore difficult than trying to slash 35% of their salaries (committed or not) across the board, and putting in a $45 million hard cap. That's just insane.
Not sure where you're getting the "slash 35%" number; the most aggressive cut that I have seen bandied about is to 50% player share. If there was a hard cap of $45 million as in your example, then it would likely not pay up to the player share percentage, and so the players would get the surplus above their salaries to meet the player share anyway, making the effective salary difficult to estimate in advance and making the hard cap as a less-than-useful tool. ($45 million hard cap * 30ish teams = less than $1.5 billion, notably less than the $2 billion plus that has been the player take recently.)
More effective is for the NBA to estimate the cap every year like they are currently doing, but maybe make it a harder cap (if not a completely hard cap) than it currently is.
Balanced, effective solution: Increase the revenue sharing (maybe increasing it by 10 or 20 or 30 million is possible and/or somehow giving a bigger cut of the playoff revenue across the teams), cut the player share to low 50's (not necessarily 50/50), tighten the cap restrictions, and play ball. If owners can get some concession on not having to pay the full contract of injured players (or even those who are dogging it), great.
As for the financial statements, no matter whether you use the NBA official version or if you back out amortization, etc., many teams have still been losing substantial money. I would support what Bill Simmons said to loosen up the policy around salvaging bottom-feeder teams such as the Hornets. If they can't be profitable with a little bit more revenue sharing and the new CBA, let them move to Anaheim, or let them fold.
