As of midnight, the NBA lockout reached Day 144. The owners and players continue to differ on a number of issues, from Basketball Related Income (BRI) to salary cap and free agency rules. Commissioner David Stern has already announced the cancellation of NBA games through December 15th, with fears that cancellations could carry into 2012--or worse, the whole season will be lost.
Obviously, owners and players stand to lose in the short term with an absence of basketball games. No games means no money coming in, with players--as employees of the owners--no longer receiving paychecks. As a partnership--employers and employees--the differences regarding league rules, team operations, and financial obligations echo problems felt across the U.S. and international economies. Owners/employers want to run profitable businesses and make as much money as they can, while players/employees want to earn a fair share working in safe conditions and make as much money as they can. Yet, the economic and legal dispute between the NBA owners and NBA players carries much more weight, as a number of cities--and their people--suffer due to the lockout.
With the understanding that the owners and players (at least most of them) have a reserve of cash to fall back on, temporary hiatus is bearable for them. However, hundreds of underappreciated employees who assist with team operations, game operations, and the arena experience--many of whom NBA work is their primary source of income--are left facing not only the problems of the current extended recession but also the brunt of the lockout. In essence, the NBA lockout has created indefinite forced unemployment, minus any unemployment or retraining benefits. While owners and players argue over millions of dollars, other employees are missing out on the few dollars that come their way.
Who is right? Who is wrong? Who is to blame for the lockout? Yes, both sides--ownership and players--have made valid points. Again, their disagreements align with disagreements across multiple business industries. At the same time, both sides are to blame.
Owners have been complaining of league rules which enable them to competitively spend--or competitively overspend--in order to be the best in the league. Rules or no rules, owners and their hired personnel management (vice presidents of operations/general managers) are the ones who have offered a number of expensive and excessively unfavorable contracts to non-superstar and other underqualified players. To a large degree, the owners are victims of their own questionable decision-making. Expecting players to pay for ownership/management mistakes is troublesome. Moreover, BRI has been on the negotiating table for years--including during the 1998 NBA lockout; these issues could have been addressed in further detail the last time the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired in 2005. In the end, the current situation in the NBA is a lockout by the owners, not a strike by the players. The players are not playing because the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired and they got locked out of the facilities by the owners.
Meanwhile, the players seem unsatisfied with the amount of power they have gained over the past 2 decades. Player salaries have stretched out quite a bit. For example, John "Hot Rod" Williams' big payday via the Miami Heat and Cleveland Cavaliers in 1990 had him become the highest paid player in the league at $5 million dollars for the 1990-1991 season. Last season, the midlevel exception for average to above average free agents was $5.8 million dollars. Even if contract maximums (dollars, # of years) are lowered, the truth remains that the NBA has the most player-friendly contracts in American professional sports. Why? Because the contracts are guaranteed. A players can be cut in the middle of his contract, but he will still be paid for his base salary--unless a buyout clause was included in the original contract. Making the situation look worse for the players is that several players seem out of the loop regarding negotiations, or at best, are misinformed. For example, rising superstar Derrick Rose was quoted as saying that, "Back in the day, they were giving guys coming out of college multimillion dollar contracts, so why stop it now?" Those familiar with NBA rookie contracts know that rookie contracts are fairly limited in the NBA; bigger rookie contracts, including signing bonuses, are associated with the NFL and Major League Baseball.
Regardless of blame, it appears that the owners and the players have neglected the full consequences of the current NBA lockout and labor dispute. They may lose lots of money for not having basketball games, but the non-owners and non-players around them risk losing so much more. Much is said in business and in life about being able to tell the difference between what can be controlled and what is beyond control. In the case of the NBA lockout, people are suffering because circumstances that they cannot control are quite controllable by the owners and players. Hopefully, the owners and players can put aside their differences to truly be partners and truly do what is best for all involved. An agreement--even a short term one--needs to happen soon.
Obviously, owners and players stand to lose in the short term with an absence of basketball games. No games means no money coming in, with players--as employees of the owners--no longer receiving paychecks. As a partnership--employers and employees--the differences regarding league rules, team operations, and financial obligations echo problems felt across the U.S. and international economies. Owners/employers want to run profitable businesses and make as much money as they can, while players/employees want to earn a fair share working in safe conditions and make as much money as they can. Yet, the economic and legal dispute between the NBA owners and NBA players carries much more weight, as a number of cities--and their people--suffer due to the lockout.
With the understanding that the owners and players (at least most of them) have a reserve of cash to fall back on, temporary hiatus is bearable for them. However, hundreds of underappreciated employees who assist with team operations, game operations, and the arena experience--many of whom NBA work is their primary source of income--are left facing not only the problems of the current extended recession but also the brunt of the lockout. In essence, the NBA lockout has created indefinite forced unemployment, minus any unemployment or retraining benefits. While owners and players argue over millions of dollars, other employees are missing out on the few dollars that come their way.
Who is right? Who is wrong? Who is to blame for the lockout? Yes, both sides--ownership and players--have made valid points. Again, their disagreements align with disagreements across multiple business industries. At the same time, both sides are to blame.
Owners have been complaining of league rules which enable them to competitively spend--or competitively overspend--in order to be the best in the league. Rules or no rules, owners and their hired personnel management (vice presidents of operations/general managers) are the ones who have offered a number of expensive and excessively unfavorable contracts to non-superstar and other underqualified players. To a large degree, the owners are victims of their own questionable decision-making. Expecting players to pay for ownership/management mistakes is troublesome. Moreover, BRI has been on the negotiating table for years--including during the 1998 NBA lockout; these issues could have been addressed in further detail the last time the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired in 2005. In the end, the current situation in the NBA is a lockout by the owners, not a strike by the players. The players are not playing because the Collective Bargaining Agreement expired and they got locked out of the facilities by the owners.
Meanwhile, the players seem unsatisfied with the amount of power they have gained over the past 2 decades. Player salaries have stretched out quite a bit. For example, John "Hot Rod" Williams' big payday via the Miami Heat and Cleveland Cavaliers in 1990 had him become the highest paid player in the league at $5 million dollars for the 1990-1991 season. Last season, the midlevel exception for average to above average free agents was $5.8 million dollars. Even if contract maximums (dollars, # of years) are lowered, the truth remains that the NBA has the most player-friendly contracts in American professional sports. Why? Because the contracts are guaranteed. A players can be cut in the middle of his contract, but he will still be paid for his base salary--unless a buyout clause was included in the original contract. Making the situation look worse for the players is that several players seem out of the loop regarding negotiations, or at best, are misinformed. For example, rising superstar Derrick Rose was quoted as saying that, "Back in the day, they were giving guys coming out of college multimillion dollar contracts, so why stop it now?" Those familiar with NBA rookie contracts know that rookie contracts are fairly limited in the NBA; bigger rookie contracts, including signing bonuses, are associated with the NFL and Major League Baseball.
Regardless of blame, it appears that the owners and the players have neglected the full consequences of the current NBA lockout and labor dispute. They may lose lots of money for not having basketball games, but the non-owners and non-players around them risk losing so much more. Much is said in business and in life about being able to tell the difference between what can be controlled and what is beyond control. In the case of the NBA lockout, people are suffering because circumstances that they cannot control are quite controllable by the owners and players. Hopefully, the owners and players can put aside their differences to truly be partners and truly do what is best for all involved. An agreement--even a short term one--needs to happen soon.