Tag: Charles Grantham


Former NBA union head no fan of decertification strategy


A couple months back when PBT spoke with Charles Grantham, former head of the National Basketball Players Association — the players union that is now the players trade association — he said that there were some hills worth dying on for players in these labor talks. Things like guaranteed contracts or the owners’ idea of decoupling revenue and the salary cap were issues the players could not give in on.

But there comes a time when it’s about playing basketball if you get those things.

Which is why Grantham told the USA Today he didn’t love the union’s move of dissolving (via a disclaimer of interest) and having the players sue the league on antitrust grounds. He thinks the union is missing the big picture.

“I certainly think the overall players should’ve had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to proceed. … I’m perplexed as to how we go from agreeing to 50% ready to move forward and not recognizing that you can’t get more than that no matter what the system says. When you start talking about missing the season, you have to consider a cost-benefit analysis. How much is it going to cost me as a player to get a system change? Is it worth me losing up to 25% of my salary?

“I’m not certain this move is good for the them. I can see where it’s good for the antitrust attorneys who might be charging as much as $1 million a week in fees or the agents who see that seven-point swing (from 57% to 50% BRI) as adding up over time as quite a bit of money. But it also is money that hasn’t been earned. Theoretically you’re losing that money, but at the same time the pie is bigger and the average salary is increasing.”

Grantham seems to believe — as do I and some agents, as well as the owners — that if David Stern’s last offer had been put to a vote of the players, it would have passed. Not overwhelmingly, but it would have passed. And in the long haul the players would be better off on the courts than in the courts.

Make no mistake, the owners think they can wait the players out, that the players will eventually cave. Stern tried to get a deal that he thought his owners would approve, but he didn’t give the players a way to save face in there. So the players rejected it and went to the courts. Now multiple sources are saying the owners are dug in and going to let the players miss another check or two (Dec. 1 is the day the players would have been paid). They are going to wait out the players.

When you stand back and look at the big picture, you wonder if Grantham isn’t right and the players shouldn’t have voted on the last deal.

Former union chief says sides may not be feeling pressure yet

Leave a comment

Fans, we’re feeling pressure. Later on Friday the official news will come down that the preseason has been postponed and the first preseason games have been canceled.

While that seems like it should be pressure to us, it may not be to Billy Hunter and David Stern.

The cancellation of games — even regular season games — does not reach into the negotiating room like you would think, said Charles Grantham, the former head of the NBA players union who helped negotiate the league’s Collective Bargain Agreements between 1980 and 1995.

“You don’t feel the pressure of cancelling regular season games, I think if possible you may think about adjusting your workout period, your preseason schedule,” Grantham said.

He added the real pressure comes when you start to feel progress in the talks — something that had seemed to happen in recent weeks but has now faded.

“Once you get some moves away from the area of confrontational bargaining — meaning that you are stuck on your page and I am stuck on their page and there is no movement — then there is a kind of pressure,” he said.

While much of the public debate has been around the issues of hard or soft salary cap, Grantham said that the first order of business need to be to figure out exactly what is “basketball related income.”

“The first thing I think happens is you define the pie,” he said. “The definition of the pie — whether you’re talking football or basketball or hockey, because they all have similar systems — is in flux with each negotiation.”

Grantham said the players willing to reduce their share of BRI shows they are serious about negotiations, although clearly the owners don’t think it is enough of a giveback. After they figure out all that the two sides can get into issues such as the system — the structure of the cap — and things such as guaranteed contracts.

If you want to know where the players line in the sand is, try to decouple league revenues from the salary structure.

“The best thing we ever did in 1980 when we went into this revenue sharing agreement was tying players salary to revenue,” Grantham said. “So as long as revenue went up and business was good and people were running their business efficiently then player salaries would go up….

This period here, of recessionary or concessionary bargaining if you want to say that, then you’re starting to look at milestones and triggers going forward that reflect the changes that you’re making now. But also put a positive spin on that as well. Meaning, if we’re taking a hit now, three years from now (and we’re signing a six-year deal) if revenue starts to grow at a certain rate or you hit certain milestones then those three or four points I’ve giving you back I get the chance to recoup.”

That doesn’t sound a lot like the talks going on, which shows you how far apart the two sides really are. Maybe that will change when they start to feel some real pressure.