What's new
By:

Would you accept the NBA offer?

Do you accept the offer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 93.9%

  • No

    Votes: 3 6.1%
  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .
My2Cents said:
This. You might not like it but you would accept it if the alternative was an even bigger paycut or no job at all. Of course, you could always go elsewhere and hope you're able to find a job that pays as much or more. Maybe in Europe...
Click to expand...
NBA globetrotters from Deron Williams ($5 millionish salary for an All-Star?) on down have proven that going overseas is not an equally attractive alternative financially (not to mention geographically), even if the owners slashed salaries further than they already have.

Or, if you apply Michael Porter's Five Forces model (commonly taught in MBA schools) to it:

Owners are strong in barriers to entry (NBA would be hard to impossible for players, agents, or anyone else to replicate, because owners have the financial capital and operational infrastructure)

Owners are so-so in availability of suppliers (suppliers = players; they could use replacement players who wouldn't be so attractive in talent but would come at a far lower cost)

Owners are weak in their ability to counter buyers' power (advertisers and fans have a wide range of options and can be price-sensitive), availability of substitutes (NFL, NCAA, etc. look like good entertainment options to all but the die-hard NBA fans), and competitive rivalry (if you include other team sports battling for sports-entertainment eyeballs).

Michael_Porter_Five_Forces_Model.png

https://www.maxi-pedia.com/Five+Forces+model+by+Michael+Porter

If the NBA owners wanted to strengthen their strategic position further according to this model, they would continue to squeeze the players for even more, because this revised CBA takes the owners only back to around break-even, still leaving tons on the table financially for the players relative to their next-best alternatives (Europe, traveling leagues, etc.). So while it might sting to take a 10% to 12% average pay cut, it'll sting more if they dilly-dally.

These are the types of business and strategy fundamentals that most (if not all) NBA players--with their average <2 years of college education, not to mention lack of "real life" professional experience--do not understand, including Derek Fisher, Billy Hunter, and the team representatives.

And it helps to explain why the players might not be recognizing that if they don't accept this offer, things are more likely to get worse for them rather than better. Owners will make players pay for the need to delay revenue generation further and/or begin the multi-year process of restructuring the NBA from the ground up, albeit from a better cost basis.

I'm surprised that the well-respected University of Chicago economist that the NBAPA hired didn't talk some strategic sense into the NBAPA executive committee. Or maybe he tried.
 
Last edited:
What they dont understand is that player contracts drive ticket prices. If ticket prices dont come down many fans are going to be priced out. So those fans watch on cable. The cable deal also goes to player salaries. As salaries go up, cable prices will eventually go up as well. Eventually the fan cant afford to keep cable so they cancel service. If people cancel thier cable the cable comp. will not renew the contract and that means no more money for players.

I think the owners understand this much better than the players do. Players see the money the league made last year, but they dont see 3 year or 5 years or 10 years in advance. Lots of owners have gottten to be owners because they can plan ahead and have a good plan. They see that they have a commondity that people can easily cut out of their life. So if they cant change ticket priceing in order to keep pace with the economy then they get 100% loss instead of 5% or 10%. That is why getting locked into contracts is scary for owners.

So yes I would take it if I was a player.
 
just because said:
In today's economy, I would say 90% of us would take a 10% paycut in order to keep our jobs.
Click to expand...

In today's economy lots of people have done exactly that, and more, just to stay employed. This is a bad environment for the players to get a lot of sympathy. So instead of your 5 million per year, plus a chunk of 1.2 billion, you get a chunk of 1.1 billion instead? Oh I feel so sad for you. Wut-ever.
 
Of course I take it. If I have, on average, 9 or so years to secure my financial future how much more money could I possibly expect to make that would overcome losing more than 10% of my potential time I'm able to maintain a substantial income? But then again, I'm not a player and they're not me -- they're doubtful looking to secure their financial future but instead literally live paycheck to paycheck, which is probably a huge thing fueling the entitlement because they see themselves as being just like everyone else. The only losers in the long run are the agents, who will be around still making money long after the players of today are gone, so how do you think they'll advise their clients?
 
Biggest reason to take the deal is the 6 year opt out clause. It's just not that long a window. Accept the setback, bank the money, and make sure everyone's prepared for the next lockout when the players will go for blood. By then, the sympathy should switch to them in the media and the owners will have an impossible task crying poverty. This really isn't a difficult choice.
 
billyshelby said:
Biggest reason to take the deal is the 6 year opt out clause. It's just not that long a window. Accept the setback, bank the money, and make sure everyone's prepared for the next lockout when the players will go for blood. By then, the sympathy should switch to them in the media and the owners will have an impossible task crying poverty. This really isn't a difficult choice.
Click to expand...
By then a good chunk of these players will be gone. The players will have become comfortable with what they are making and it seems likely to me that the deal would just get extended if the owners still like it. Any sympathy for the players you think they would get will quickly disappear if they go on strike to try and get a better CBA. I'm sorry but public opinion is not likely to change to someone earning millions of dollars for doing something that the majority would do for far less if they were able.

To get back on topic if the players are smart they take this deal with maybe a couple very minor tweaks. I just don't see a season happening if they go much longer. The talk of decertification will only get stronger if there is another blowup in the talks. Decertification seems to be the death of the season, if not the league as we know it.
 
Just like in Monty Python, "Let's not trouble ourselves with "who killed who", this is a happy occasion"

At this point, the players know what's coming (crappier deal than last CBA)....and the owners aren't all good business men, but I just don't care anymore. I just want basketball back. Arguing over pennies and cents while the fans and businesses around the arenas are starting to fall by the way side. Take the deal and let's play.
 
One Brow said:
The general economy is down, but NBA revenue is up. Would you accept a 10% pay cut with your employer making record revenues in a good economy for your industry?
Click to expand...


Revenues don't equal profitability. And the REASON they aren't profitable it most of the revenue is going into the players pockets. If my employer was losing money because 58% of their revenue was being given to me and my cronies, I'd expect a pay cut post-haste.
 
JazzFever said:
Revenues don't equal profitability. And the REASON they aren't profitable it most of the revenue is going into the players pockets. If my employer was losing money because 58% of their revenue was being given to me and my cronies, I'd expect a pay cut post-haste.
Click to expand...

The percentage was profitable enough when the CBA was renewed in 2005(?), after being set at 57% in 1999.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top