I just got done reading the complaint filed by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) against the NBA. (Butler v. NBA, it can be found here (http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/NBA.pdf ) The complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act. The Sherman Act is the federal anti-trust act. Essentially, bargaining can take place between the NBA and the NBPA as long both sides remain as parts of their respective unions. However, the when one side of the collective unit decides to decertify (in this case the players) there is no longer a collective bargaining situation. In essence, the NBA owners are now colluding and price fixing professional basketball (at least this is what is alleged by the NBPA in their complaint).
The owners will likely defend based on the non-statutory labor exemption. The labor exemption is based on a policy that favors collective bargaining and gives it preference over the antitrust laws. Any union-management agreement that is a product of good faith negotiation will receive protection from antitrust laws.
Now, I could go into whether the lawsuit will succeed and the merits of the case. Have the owners negotiated in good faith? Have the players been realistic in forcing the NBA to operate at a loss? Has Billy Hunter really screwed the pooch with his negotiating (which has had many gaffs to date)? Instead, I would like to examine if the lawsuit succeeds. What type of product will the NBA produce in the long run, if no CBA exists and the players are put out into the open market to fend for themselves and owners are truly trying to maximize their profits.
The NBA without a CBA will look drastically different from today's NBA. Here is my theorized order of events that would occur if the doomsday scenario of happened - resuming professional basketball without a CBA.
1. Individual player salaries will soar
2. Large market teams will drive the players salaries higher
3. Small market teams will no longer exist
4. Less major league basketball players
5. Worse overall product and experience
INDIVIDUAL PLAYER SALARIES WILL SOAR & LARGE MARKET TEAMS WILL DRIVE THE PLAYERS SALARIES HIGHER
The first two factors of a league with a CBA are intrinsically tied together. Large market teams (teams like the Knicks, Lakers, Mavs, Bulls, Celtics, and Clippers) can make money regardless of the success of their team because of the market they are located in. These teams operate at a profit even if they are bad (like the Knicks), and they operate at a huge profit if they are successful (like the Lakers). These teams will be able to control the market of player talent. Without a salary cap, these teams will simply bid higher and higher driving the salaries of major league players through the roof.
SMALL MARKET TEAMS WILL NO LONGER EXIST
Because of the large market driven league, you can cut the number of major league teams in half. Approximately half of the NBA teams operate at a loss or just barely break even. These teams include my beloved Orlando Magic and Memphis Grizzlies. Half of NBA organizations cannot turn a profit under the current CBA simply based the market where they are located. If these small market teams can't make a profit under a CBA, they are definitely not going to turn a profit in an open market. Rational owners will not operate at a loss. Small market teams will shut down because they cannot make money given the natural supremacy of large market teams.
LESS MAJOR LEAGUE BASKETBALL PLAYERS
With half of the NBA gone around 200 of the 450 members of the NBPA are out of a job. These are mainly going to be minor and marginal players. No longer will minor players be able to make it in the new large market Super League. This is the most perplexing factor of the current CBA negotiations. If all the players who will be driven out of professional basketball (in the NBA at least) were aware that desertification would lead to this, they would not support it.
WORSE OVERALL PRODUCT AND EXPERIENCE
Having a national basketball league that includes all large and small market teams is better for an overall basketball product than the creation of a large market Super League. Alienating millions of fans be removing their pro teams will only hurt the Super League. I am such an avid fan because I grew up in a small NBA market. When you make the product so inaccessible to so many people, the product will generally suffer. The NFL succeeds in part because of significant competitive balance throughout the league. Every year multiple teams come out of nowhere to be competitive in the NFL. The NBA has only had 9 champions since 1980 (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Rockets, Mavs, Miami, Detroit, San Antonio, Philly). San Antonio and Detroit are the only true small markets and they only account for 6 of those championships. Fans have grown tired of seeing the same teams compete year in and year out. Give us some diversity. Not having a CBA will only promote large market exploitation.
Of course, all of this is a doomsday scenario prognostication. I hope none of it comes true. If the league has competitive balance, then the league will flourish. Creating super teams that are completely player centric will be the downfall of the NBA. Hopefully, it will not come to that.
But what about the periods of greatest league success coming when there was the least competitive balance? the 80's were extremely top heavy as was this past year (and yes even though you might have the worst GM not to have ever been employed by the Dolan family I would include your "small market" team with the largest most expensive arena in this group) as well as the second Jordan threepeat when no one could compete with those teams. We claim to want balance and purport that what keeps us from loving the NBA is a lack of parity and yet we don't tune in for the Cleveland San Antonio finals at nearly the same clip that we do for Boston LA (large market marque franchises with history) or Dallas Miami (arguably the most polarizing super team in history). This brings up a good question; if sacramento charlotte and new orleans folds and no one is in the arena to hear the noise will a noise even happen at all (the tree falling metaphor is a little harder to convert to the NBA than I suspected.
ReplyDeleteAs an Orlando fan I can understand why the idea of contraction is a scary one but again I think that yall would not be contracted. The elephant in the room and the reason this whole thing is dragging on and on is the fact that in the NBA there is a significant amount of revenue that needs to be generated by ticket especially season ticket and suite sales. The owners believe that the problem is that the players can demand too much money under the system that they are under and that contracts go on too long. however unless free agency is eliminated entirely (not going to happen) I think it is fair to say that the best talent will want to concentrate in big markets because they are good places to live or places with favorable tax rates like cities in Florida Texas and of course Memphis...right... shortening the length of guranteed contracts will of course make teams more flexible but also mean that players will have more incentive to get the maximum bang for their buck out of their player years and combined with lower levels of compensation will seek cities in which they can maximize their marketability as a commodity which will mean that if its a choice between taking 10 million a year in chicago and 13 million in milwaukee the value of Chicago is now in fact even higher than it was previously under the old system. I think this fact means that perhaps the best thing for the quality of the product and the bottom line of teams would be a concentration of the product in fewer cities.
There are many positives that would come from a smaller league. first of all the fact that it is hard to sell season ticket packages valued at 20k a year in a city like cleveland with a floundering economy is completely removed as a stumbling block to the future of the league. Second the NBA is immensly popular internationally. think of all the money to be made by selling TV packages over the internet or through cable. This is how soccer franchises are consistently valued higher than american sports because they have done a better job of encouraging global fandom. I believe that the NBA the most international sports league outside of hockey and the number one if you consider Canada to be our 51st state would sell amazingly well internationally, especially if you are talking about a league with fewer teams and thusly higher talent concentrations
There are a lot of subjects touched on by Freestyle.
ReplyDeleteParity will still be better for the NBA in the long run. A lack of parity is a result of the boom and bust that is the NBA success. Large markets dominating the sport constantly leave voids and down years.
The "soccer effect" will not work in an American basketball structure. Less teams will mean less games. Less games on TV and less revenue from ticket sales. The Knicks, Celtics, and Lakers make a crap ton of money by beating the crap out of Milwaukee and Charlotte.
The doomsday scenario, where the NBA drastically contracts eliminates a lot of casual fans. The causal fans that go to the game for the experience (because the Amway Center is cool). Eliminating theses fans in small market cities will hurt the overall support, nation wide, for the league.