Tag: NFL lockout


Winderman: Challenge in NBA lockout is owners, players infighting


The two sides in the NFL labor dispute have finally come together, so there will be football.

Perhaps that’s why they came together, because there only were two sides.

What has become increasingly clear amid this first month of the NBA lockout is that this is a lockout squared. There essentially are four sides.

On the ownership side, there are those with an immense amount to lose: the Heat losing one of the four locked-in years on the contracts of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh; the Celtics losing perhaps the last go-round with Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen; the Lakers losing the Buss family’s primary source of income; the Knicks losing impetus gained amid the costly retrofitting of Madison Square Garden; the Bulls losing their first taste of momentum in the post-Jordan era.

But on the ownership side, there also are those who gain more without playing: the Kings, who can gain additional time to sort out their arena situation without another season in their current outdated building; the Cavaliers, who could find themselves with another guaranteed high lottery pick and a quicker path toward rebuilding; the Bobcats, who clearly need some sort of revenue sharing to make it work; ditto for the league-owned Hornets.

But it’s not only a schism among owners.

On the players’ side, we’re hearing plenty about Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose cashing in for $400,000 apiece with this past weekend’s appearances in the Philippines; about Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade and Carmelo Anthony and their current tour of China; of Amare Stoudemire, Deron Williams and Dwight Howard and their lucrative overseas possibilities.

But the league’s lesser players, the ones who could lose a year of their fleeting careers? They’re not getting the big bucks to tour or sign overseas. They’re just seeing transitory paychecks soon to be lost.

Yes, the NBA needs a consensus to get out of this mess.

But first there must be a consensus between the owners. And between the players.

Why exactly would the Lakers, with their profitable new local television deal, want to revenue share with the Kings, who are threatening to move into their very market?

Why shouldn’t the lesser half of the players’ union simply say: “Raise the annual minimum to $2 million per, guaranteed, and we’re in, and feel free to cut the maximum while you’re at it.”?

On the owners’ side, is revenue sharing best for all? Or contraction?

For the players, wouldn’t decertification and a free-for-all for benefits create a further gap between the haves and have-nots?

It still is only July, less than a month into the lockout, at the very point when it also was highly contentious in the NFL lockout.

But unanimity is easier brokered when there are only two sides to the story.

What the NBA needs at this point, before anything else, are truly unified fronts.

Not high-end players cavorting overseas as the rank and file seeing valuable career time slipping away.

Not owners who aren’t even sure what they’ll do with the pie when they finally get their slice.

If the lockout continues to be played as a game of two-on-two, it will remain a game with no possible winner.

Ira Winderman writes regularly for NBCSports.com and covers the Heat and the NBA for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. You can follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/IraHeatBeat.

What can NBA learn from NFL labor peace?


They have labor peace over in the NFL. Well, the players have to vote and some league veterans have a lawsuit that could throw a wrench in the works.

But it looks like there will be NFL football in September as had been scheduled. Preseason games (except the Hall of Fame Game) will take place on time, too.

What can the NBA take away from this? What does the NFL labor peace mean for the NBA?

Not much in terms of the deal itself.

But there is one key thing to take away — this puts more pressure on both sides in the NBA situation to reach a deal.

If the NBA is the only league missing games the repercussions will be severe — to lockout and miss games during the greatest recession this nation has seen in generations will anger casual fans in a way no professional sports league has seen before. Some owners (and players) have estimated it would take four to five years to bounce back to current levels if there is only half a season or less. They underestimate the mood of the public. They underestimate how people will react when millionaires and billionaires can’t figure out how to divide up the fans money during a time of record unemployment. When everyone else is trying to get by on less. It doesn’t matter if the owners or players win the public relations battle, both sides will suffer. For many years.

Also, the NBA was always likely to follow the NFL’s lockout arc — a lot of posturing and not a lot of real negotiating until they were close to missing the start of training camps and games. Until there was that pressure, the two sides in the NFL were not going to reach a deal. Until we see that pressure build on the NBA starting in August and getting serious in September, we are not going to see meaningful negotiations. We all knew that. It doesn’t make them not sitting at a table and talking any less frustrating.

In terms of the contract the NFL and its players reached, things are very different with the NBA. At the end of the day, NFL teams were making money, just not as much as the owners used to so they wanted more. In the NBA, the league says 22 of the 30 teams lost money last year. While we can quibble over the accounting, the bottom line is that plenty of teams are not making money and many of those teams are owned by people who paid a premium for those teams and are leveraged. They are coming in with a harder line, and there needs to be changes in the NBA structure.

The NBA and NFL also are different right now in that the players have not decertified the union sued the league. Yet. While some agents like this hardline approach (an effort to gain leverage and force the owners to seriously negotiate), to do it would be to cost games — the NBA’s offseason is much shorter than the NFL’s and the federal courts are not fast. David Stern called it the “nuclear option” and it would be. It would reset the negotiations. It would mean at least half a season lost. It would be messy. So far, union director Billy Hunter and union president Derek Fisher have balked at going down that road, but the option is still on the table.

There is also this — the NFL is the king of revenue sharing. More than 70 percent of league revenue is shared thanks to massive national television deals. In the NBA, it is less than 30 percent. Call it socialist if you want, but the NBA owners have to get serious about this if they are going to make smaller markets more viable. Especially with the Lakers having already inked and the Celtics about to ink massive new local television deals (currently no local television revenue is shared).

On paper the Collective Bargaining Agreement is drawn up on, the NFL ending its lockout means little for the NBA. The financial structures of the two leagues are different and the NBA will never have the parity that makes the NFL work (one player, like a LeBron James or Dirk Nowitzki, can change games too much).

But the NFL reaching a deal does put pressure on the NBA brethren to get a deal done. Because if the NBA misses games now, they will get all of the anger and all of the repercussions.

So maybe the two sides should sit down at a table soon and talk. It’s time to get serious about this and stop posturing.

Court ruling on NFL has little impact on NBA lockout

NBA & NBA Players Association Announce New CBA
Leave a comment

While the two sides seem close to a deal in the NFL lockout, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has come down with a ruling favoring the NFL — saying that the lockout can continue in that sport.

What does that mean for the NBA lockout?

Nothing much.

The National Basketball Players Association (the NBA player’s union) is not expected to decertify, as the NFL players union did. The NBA union did collect paperwork from the players allowing for decertification, just in case, but union president Billy Hunter has said multiple times it was not a card they planned to play. The players union did not plan to challenge the legality of the lockout.

David Stern called decertification “the nuclear option” and warned the players probably didn’t want to go down that road.

One key reason was timing — the NBA off-season is shorter than the NFL’s, and the federal court system is not what anyone describes as speedy. The NBA does not really have time for an interlude in the courts if they plan to play all or most of a season.

Both the players union and NBA have been watching this case and will no doubt review the ruling in detail. But in the end it doesn’t mean much. What matters is the two sides getting back to the bargaining table and actually talking.