If MLB can have labor-management peace...

[frosgrim]

Why can't the NBA?

It looks like MLB is about to announce another 5 year agreement between ownership and the union. They even managed to add another wildcard team without dragging out the playoffs any longer.

It amazes me that baseball finally figured out that strikes, lockouts and constant bikering in the media did no one any good. Yet, the NBA as a whole couldn't (or wouldn't?) learn from baseball's mistakes. The NBA is now in for a decade long recovery in the midst of a massive economic crisis. They will never make up the money they lost for this season and will earn less per season for a long time.

Just amazing.

[coachx]

No salary cap.

It amazes me that baseball finally figured out that strikes, lockouts and constant bikering in the media did no one any good. Yet, the NBA as a whole couldn't (or wouldn't?) learn from baseball's mistakes. The NBA is now in for a decade long recovery in the midst of a massive economic crisis. They will never make up the money they lost for this season and will earn less per season for a long time.

Agree 100%

[AHF]

Nearly every MLB team in the league makes positive operating income every yera. The players make good money but less than the NBA players. As long as the MLB players aren't shooting for a big increase, they start a lot closer to a finished agreement than an NBA where 22 of 30 teams lost money and the players are the highest paid in all of sports.

Here is the bottomline to look at why this is an easier settlement:

Last season, MLB made over 494 million in operating income.

Last season, the NBA lost 300 million in operating income (according to the audited financials of the owners).

http://www.bizofbase...pper&Itemid=126

Edited November 18, 2011 by AHF

[coachx]

Nearly every MLB team in the league makes positive operating income every yera. The players make good money but less than the NBA players. As long as the MLB players aren't shooting for a big increase, they start a lot closer to a finished agreement than an NBA where 22 of 30 teams lost money and the players are the highest paid in all of sports.

Here is the bottomline to look at why this is an easier settlement:

Last season, MLB made over 494 million in operating income.

Last season, the NBA lost 300 million in operating income (according to the audited financials of the owners).

http://www.bizofbase...pper&Itemid=126

and the NBA players will not take a paycut even though all reports shows league income is down......unless you believe the NBA is actually in the hole $300 mill. If they are actually $300 mill in the hole the owners are morons for letting player contracts get this far out of hand and the players have been making out like bandits for years.

There is absolutely zero sympathy for either side and I cannot see fans warming back up to the NBA like they did the NFL. The ASG will be stuck the Hawks for 3 - 5 more seasons while the NBA tries to build their image back up to the point where they can get away with decent seats for $80, good seats for $120 and up, $8 beer, and $20 parking. All fans should hope those days are gone for a while at least. If the franchises keep cost where they were there will be empty NBA arenas every where except NY, Dallas, Miami, and LA.

To tell you the truth...........I really don't care as much as I thought I would now that its actually happening but once football stops I'm sure it will kick in..

Edited November 18, 2011 by coachx

[AHF]

If they are actually $300 mill in the hole the owners are morons for letting player contracts get this far out of hand and the players have been making out like bandits for years.

Player contracts are irrelevant to whether the NBA is making money or not as a whole. 57% of BRI is what is relevant. The NBA last season didn't spend enough on player contracts so they wrote checks to make up the difference. If they would have been too far over, the players would have given them money back.

[coachx]

Player contracts are irrelevant to whether the NBA is making money or not as a whole. 57% of BRI is what is relevant.

All expenses are relevant to profit. BRI and player contracts have an obvious connection.

BRI is specificaly related to the largest expense NBA owners have. If the players go from getting a 57% slice of the pie, down to a 50% slice of the pie that additional 7% the owners keep is very relevant.

[AHF]

All expenses are relevant to profit. BRI and player contracts have an obvious connection.

BRI is specificaly related to the largest expense NBA owners have. If the players go from getting a 57% slice of the pie, down to a 50% slice of the pie that additional 7% the owners keep is very relevant.

The additional 7% is a % of BRI. As I said, it is only the % of BRI that matters as far as the league's collective operating profits or losses.

Example: Total BRI is $100. Players are guaranteed $57. Owners get $43.

Owner profits or losses are based on $43 minus non-player-salary expenses.

Player contracts are irrelevant to league finances and here is why.

If player contracts total $59, the players give back $2 to the owners and the owners get $43.

If player contracts total $55, the owners give $2 more to the players and the owners get $43.

No matter what player contracts are given out, the owners get the same pile of money to cover their non-player-salary expenses.

[AHF]

Just to be clear, it is nice for illustrative purposes to say Profit = Revenue - Cost and then assume Revenue = BRI while we know Cost > 0.57*BRI. The only issue to be known is that BRI is not actually Revenue. Revenue is strictly greater than BRI, at least when looking at the last CBA. I would imagine this is going to be the same with the new CBA as well. Just as an example:

http://members.cox.n...larycap.htm#Q13

So from a simple number example, sure $43 is the same pile of money. But in reality, no it is not because $43 is going to fluctuate in covering non-player expense based on where the revenue came from.

No disagreement that BRI doesn't include all revenues. However, once you have defined BRI then that number is fixed. For my exapmle, I used $100 of BRI to make things simple. The % of revenues from luxury suites may vary, but that would only be relevant as far as coming up with whether the total BRI was $99 or $101, etc. Once you have defined BRI and total it, the only thing that matters for the collective league finanicals is the % going to the players.

My point is that the individual contracts are meaningless. The only thing that matters for league profitability is the % of BRI going to the players - not the total amount of the individual contracts.