UNITED WE STAND: Knicks guard Chauncey Billups (from left), former union president Derek Fisher, former union executive director Billy Hunter, Hornets star Chris Paul, Thunder guard Russell Westbrook and Celtics guard Rajon Rondo stand with the other players who voted to disband the union after rejecting the owners’ “revised” CBA. (EPA)
Something tells me not many deprived, demoralized and dominated demonstrators around the globe are relating right now with NBA players who have decided to sue the league rather than evenly divide billions of dollars annually and consent to a new collective bargaining agreement whose critical rules aren’t as advantageous as the previous system.
Nevertheless, while the ordinary and extraordinary dissenters have very little in common, especially in the beef department, they tend to have the same perfectly predictable, disagreeable response when (verbally or physically) pushed around.
Almost from the outset, correctly underlines column contributor Rasheid McCorvey, David Stern has made this lockout all about “what the players should accept if they know what’s good for them.” The commissioner’s attempted intimidation has done nothing but work against reaching a settlement, as if world class athletes can be counted on to crumple along the perforated dotted lines when insulted and challenged.
On the other hand, I suspect Stern probably does know what’s better for the players than the union’s negotiating committee, and especially their individual agents.
As representative of the 29 owners (the league owns the Hornets), Stern has far less of a hitch in his integrity when advocating the pluses and minuses of the proposed CBA, it says here, than the seemingly conflicted operators working for the players on a percentage basis.
Why are agents so gung-ho for decertification? Why are they so dead set against luxury-taxed teams being prohibited from partaking in sign-and-trade agreements and being disqualified from using the mid-level exception?
Are they protecting their clients’ free agent movement or the money they’d lose as a result of such impediments?
Agents took a huge hit when the NBA and the Players’ Association agreed in 1999 on a rookie salary scale. Since there was very little negotiating room to attain a maximum contract, fees were automatically eliminated. So, agents had to sweat for three, four or five years (while the competition tried to steal customers) before realizing a significant pay day.
The two above restrictions “eventually” would cost the agents another big hit. Sources say neither rule was scheduled to take effect after two seasons of the deal. That means Dwight Howard, Chris Paul and Deron Williams, etc. would be free to choose their destination and benefit from a max sign-and-trade arrangement a la LeBron James, etc.
Starting in season three, free agents would have been more restricted, unable, perhaps, to play where they prefer. Yet, depending on how coveted they were, they’d still be positioned to break the bank of teams other than the luxury-taxed ones, just not as much cheddar by staying put. Those same taxed teams would be limited to spending $3 million on mid-level recruits, half what remaining teams would be allowed to splurge.
Of course, if we’re to take Stern at his word, the league’s offer will change now when (not if) the two sides return to the bargaining table while the two-month litigation process grinds to a start. Supposedly the league no longer plans to offer a 50-50 split, reverting to farcical 53-47; let’s keep it mind the players got 57 percent of basketball related income per the last 11 seasons.
“The offers will only get worse from here,” Stern pledges.
That might be, but only if the owners are determined to sink the season in its entirety. I’d lose all respect for Stern if he didn’t quietly, if not quickly, reboot negotiations from where they left off.
Surely he still has enough power to devise a format that leaves both sides muttering at him when it’s agreed upon. There’s nothing written in parchment that says both sides can’t continue negotiating while they’re posturing. It does, however, warm the hearts this holiday season that while all the folks who depend on the league to eke out an existence, at least the lawyers are racking up billable hours.
Surely Stern understands that crushing and humiliating such a meaningful asset is not something that will be forgiven or forgotten.
Yes, “There will ultimately be a new collective bargaining agreement.” As he says. Yes, the 2011-12 season is “now in jeopardy.”
But that’s nothing new. It has been in jeopardy for months, if not years, when people began paying $300-400 million for franchises that originally cost $20-30 million or less, and discovered how many millions their losing operation was costing them.
And it became increasingly jeopardized when the players showed they’re not going to be shoved around—though I wish a poll of the rank-and-defiled had been taken so we knew for certain where everyone stood. How ironic that their move came a day before the first forfeited payday of the season. Obviously, there are now gonna be a lot more missed pay envelopes.
So now, we’re into the wacky world of decertification, guided by agents and guaranteed to slosh through more courtrooms than Lindsay Lohan. Simple math dictates that the owners have the upper hand. Two reasons: (a) the owners have more money; (b) the owners have less membership, thus fewer members that may possibly go astray, fewer members to keep in check, in other words.
Throw in the state of the economy, and it’s exceedingly difficult for the average working/formerly working/hope-to-be-working stiff to concoct compassion for players and their posses on the picket line.
So far, Stern has come off looking like President Obama in his acrimony with the Republicans. “I wanted to get something done, but they just up and left.”
God Bless America!