NBA lockout
PostPosted:Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:55 am
I've been following this and a lot of articles regarding this might as well be a textbook example of fallacies of poor argument on the Internet.
#1: The owners will win because they have a lot of money. For example, Paul Allen who owns the Trailblazers is stupidly rich, so there's no way they can lose because they can afford to lose more money. Well, the owner operate on a majority basis, so unanimous decision is not required. I think one time someone asked Shaq is there really that big of a deal he's being offered 20 million when he wants 30 million a year, and he said yes. Similarly, just because you're a billionaire doesn't mean 200 and 300 million per year of profit is more or less the same. If the lockout causes a sizable drop in their profit, it'd matter a lot even if you're rich, especially since a lot of guy borrowed a lot of money to build the arenas and stuff. Now I realize the argument is that some of the small market and/or poorly clubs lose more money by staying in business so they might as well drag it out. That probably gives them leverage compared to the players, but it's not because they're rich. If I have a job where I have to pay my employer to work (and get no pay), I can strike indefinitely and it still wouldn't be worse than going to work, and I have infinite leverage (regarding to my incentive to return to work) and it has absolutely nothing to do with my financial status.
2. At where I work blah blah blah. Players used to get 57% of the BRI and owners want 50%. That's about a 15% reduction in salary. I don't know where you work but if you're in a place that has been doing great overall (NBA is growing overall) and your boss want you to take a 15% pay cut, you'd probably start looking for a job elsewhere. Yeah the economy is tough but 15% of your pay is still a lot of money. Not to mention NBA players are far less replaceable compared to almost any job a regular guy might have.
3. Owners have to pay a ton of people to support basketball, why should a few elite *employee* get so much. Well NBA players aren't really employee because without them, there isn't a product either. People aren't going to pay money to see me play basketball, or even a D-league guy (probably closest league to NBA in talent). I think those guys make 5 figure salary and it's probably subsidized by the NBA, so yeah you can definitely get people to replace the NBA guys for really cheap but I don't even know where you're supposed to go to find box scores for D-League games. CEO gets pay way more than your average employees, and most owners probably have jobs similar to that, and it's not even clear if the CEO is that valuable compared to the average employee. On the other hand without Kobe, LeBron, and a handful of superstars there is literally no NBA. It's like saying how come the guy whose name show up in "Movie X starring soandso" gets paid so much when a movie uses hundreds if not thousands of guys? Well without that guy, that movie probably isn't going to sell very well, which is why that guy's name shows up as the first thing you see.
I'm on the side of the players, though overall I think the chance for a solution is pretty grim. It seems like there are enough mismanaged team who will lose less money by not playing basketball at all and this basically gives those guys infinite leverage. When you consider the Clippers are consistently profitable, I don't see how losing money can be blamed on systematic failures. Yes the Clippers are in Los Angeles, but they're also one of the worst teams in all professional sports. It's hard for me to imagine Clippers get awesome private TV deals (though probably better than teams of similar record in a small area). It's well chronicled that Donald Sterling (owner) attempts to pay his players as little money as possible. Why spent $80 million and have a team that sucks when you can do that for $40 million?
#1: The owners will win because they have a lot of money. For example, Paul Allen who owns the Trailblazers is stupidly rich, so there's no way they can lose because they can afford to lose more money. Well, the owner operate on a majority basis, so unanimous decision is not required. I think one time someone asked Shaq is there really that big of a deal he's being offered 20 million when he wants 30 million a year, and he said yes. Similarly, just because you're a billionaire doesn't mean 200 and 300 million per year of profit is more or less the same. If the lockout causes a sizable drop in their profit, it'd matter a lot even if you're rich, especially since a lot of guy borrowed a lot of money to build the arenas and stuff. Now I realize the argument is that some of the small market and/or poorly clubs lose more money by staying in business so they might as well drag it out. That probably gives them leverage compared to the players, but it's not because they're rich. If I have a job where I have to pay my employer to work (and get no pay), I can strike indefinitely and it still wouldn't be worse than going to work, and I have infinite leverage (regarding to my incentive to return to work) and it has absolutely nothing to do with my financial status.
2. At where I work blah blah blah. Players used to get 57% of the BRI and owners want 50%. That's about a 15% reduction in salary. I don't know where you work but if you're in a place that has been doing great overall (NBA is growing overall) and your boss want you to take a 15% pay cut, you'd probably start looking for a job elsewhere. Yeah the economy is tough but 15% of your pay is still a lot of money. Not to mention NBA players are far less replaceable compared to almost any job a regular guy might have.
3. Owners have to pay a ton of people to support basketball, why should a few elite *employee* get so much. Well NBA players aren't really employee because without them, there isn't a product either. People aren't going to pay money to see me play basketball, or even a D-league guy (probably closest league to NBA in talent). I think those guys make 5 figure salary and it's probably subsidized by the NBA, so yeah you can definitely get people to replace the NBA guys for really cheap but I don't even know where you're supposed to go to find box scores for D-League games. CEO gets pay way more than your average employees, and most owners probably have jobs similar to that, and it's not even clear if the CEO is that valuable compared to the average employee. On the other hand without Kobe, LeBron, and a handful of superstars there is literally no NBA. It's like saying how come the guy whose name show up in "Movie X starring soandso" gets paid so much when a movie uses hundreds if not thousands of guys? Well without that guy, that movie probably isn't going to sell very well, which is why that guy's name shows up as the first thing you see.
I'm on the side of the players, though overall I think the chance for a solution is pretty grim. It seems like there are enough mismanaged team who will lose less money by not playing basketball at all and this basically gives those guys infinite leverage. When you consider the Clippers are consistently profitable, I don't see how losing money can be blamed on systematic failures. Yes the Clippers are in Los Angeles, but they're also one of the worst teams in all professional sports. It's hard for me to imagine Clippers get awesome private TV deals (though probably better than teams of similar record in a small area). It's well chronicled that Donald Sterling (owner) attempts to pay his players as little money as possible. Why spent $80 million and have a team that sucks when you can do that for $40 million?