One of the interesting phenomenons to come out of the NBA lockout has been the vehemence with which many fans have "taken sides". You can't read a fan discussion without people proudly announcing that they are "pro-owner" or "on the players' side". We've seen both fans and NBA writers resort to some fairly ugly language in arguing why their "side" is in "right" and the other side is "wrong". All of this has come despite the fact that there is no objective evidence that either the players or owners care about the fans in this dispute at all.
So, why do fans choose sides? A lot of it is that for many of us, the reason we love sports is because we love competition. The lockout, at its core, is a competition, which very clearly pits two sides against one another. It's not quite Celtics versus Lakers, but it's hard to see an outcome that won't involve one side being branded as the "winner", while the other is the "loser". Fans naturally love to back winners, which is why many are declaring their allegiances.
Other fans are influenced by their own personal convictions. Some will be "pro-labor" in almost any employee / employer dispute; others will be anti-union, no matter what the circumstances. Some see race as a factor here, and gravitate toward the players as a matter of social justice. Others see the players as prima donnas who want to have their cake and eat it too, earning millions of dollar while coasting by on their talent; Eddy Curry and Vin Baker are poster boys for those fans who adopt this view.
In the end, though, I personally think it's silly, to get worked up over who "wins". I'm not talking about the fans who think one side makes more sense than the other. No, I mean the passionate, hardcore true believers, the ones who want to see the owners crush the players, or the fans who would prefer the players to sit out the season rather than make a "bad" deal.
We're talking about a group of approximately 500 people who can't decide how to divvy up $4 billion in revenue. Nobody has clean hands here. Sure, it was the owners who locked the players out, but if the roles were reversed, would the players behave any differently? I think not. Collectively, the two sides are a group of millionaires and billionaires who are completely out of touch with the reality of the average American. They'd rather slaughter their golden goose than cave over approximately $40 million per side in annual revenue. These aren't particularly likable people, and that's even before getting into the agents and the lawyers, etc.
Are these really the people you want to be defending? Is it really going to matter in your life one iota if the two sides meet in the middle at 51/49, rather than holding out for that last 1%? Are the flame wars and strident statements really necessary? I'm truly curious: why do you care? Isn't playing basketball the thing that matters here, rather than some imaginary ideal of "fairness"?
I say, just play. Both sides, give in. Or, better yet, give back. Players, owners, listen up: you want this lockout to be over without "giving in" and "losing face"? Do you want to "stand on principle"? Here's the solution: Players get 50% of BRI, owners get 48%, and... the fans get 2%. Take that $80 million, and redistribute to the fans in the way of free tickets. That's approximately 1300 tickets at $50 each per 41 home games. That's a plan I can get fired up about. All the rest of this? It's just nonsense that's not worth losing sleep over. If you're one of those fans who is really going to be upset if your side "caves", I'd suggest you take a step back and re-examine your priorities. Neither side cares about you, so why waste your breath defending them?
3 recs | 59 comments
Amen,....and very well said....just excellent Mr Hobbs
Master Po - October 31, 2011
Thanks, Po...
It’s been an idea floating around in my head for weeks, and I couldn’t find the right way to say it. I finally just sat down and spat it out.
Roy_Hobbs - October 31, 2011
...there is no objective evidence that either the fans or owners care about the fans in this dispute at all.
Roy,
Did you mean, “…there is no objective evidence that either the players or owners care about the fans in this dispute at all.”
GetYourSoxOn - October 31, 2011
Yeah, thanks...
Tell Jeff he needs to hire me an editor. ;-)
Roy_Hobbs - October 31, 2011
Great article Roy.
I love the part about taking the 2% and making it a way to give back to the community and fans. Though I think free tickets would be cool how about some across the board price decreases for the length of the CBA? How about free parking at the game? Free concessions during halftime?
One part I think that should be looked at for why people get so fired up about this is anger. They are angry at not having an off season to talk trade, Summer League, free agents and so forth and now even more angry over a lack of preseason and actual cancellation of games.
One thing I have learned about angry people, they love to point blame at people and set their anger upon those they blame. This might be why some are so strong in their opinions one way or the other. They are angry and are blaming either the players or the owners.
I think we should blame both equally and show it by not tuning in for a while and not attending games once they return. Want to hurt a rich person because you are angry at them, hit them in the pocket.
Sadly, given this is the last year of the Big Three era, I will be watching, hopefully, but I will refuse to go to my normal 5-10 games or so this year. And probably for some years to come.
nickagneta - October 31, 2011
Thanks, nick...
I like your suggestions for “giving back” the 2%. Free parking or concessions would be good promotions, as well. With $2.7 million per team, or $65,000 per game, they might not be able to accommodate every single fan, but they could accommodate enough of them to make the fan experience more pleasurable and cost effective.
And then we wake up out of our pipe dream.
Roy_Hobbs - October 31, 2011
Give back to those who are helping right now
http://www.pri.org/stories/arts-entertainment/as-nba-lockout-drags-on-the-forgotten-casualties-are-the-arena-workers-6705.html
Instead of free parking how about giving back to those who are picking up the slack while billionaires and millionaires are “negiotating”. $2+ million can feed a whole lot of bellies.
But that’ll never happen either.
yakyakyak - October 31, 2011
I'm not pro-owner or pro-player, just pro-fairness.
.
Perhaps the 57-43 split offered the owners a chance to break even or make a small profit when the last CBA was signed. If the Forbes.com numbers (linked in other threads) can be believed, many teams are now losing money, let alone breaking even. Why is this? Perhaps player salaries, travel expenses, venue expenses, etc. increased over time at a rate totally unanticipated.
The owners pay for these expenses from their cut of the BMI and now they would like to see an adjustment of the split to take care of this change, or increase, in expenses. Why would any owner not want to make a small profit or at least break even, given that 4 billion in revenue is out there to be split up? People who say that the owners bought the team out of vanity or as a tax shelter, well, I just don’t go for that logic. I believe that owners made their money by being careful and also by taking risks that they deemed acceptable. The owners would not just throw money around because they can, although there may be an exception or two in the bunch.
I think the financial health of the NBA requires an adjustment, it is just that simple. Otherwise, the poorer teams may lose value and perhaps fold. Contraction, which IMO only appeals to the fans, would be a sign of failure by the league.
I like the idea of having some part of the split go to the fans. I am sure that most teams give away tickets to charity, but for the people are not in that category and don’t have enough “extra” money to spend on tickets, parling, transportation and lodging (in my case), it would be a help.
GetYourSoxOn - October 31, 2011
*parking
GetYourSoxOn - October 31, 2011
That is one way to spin it
People spin this so many ways. They talk about small market teams — which is irrelevant to the players if the big market teams like the Lakers are making mountains of cash. That is a revenue sharing issue. What is relevant to the players position is the overall profits or losses for the entire league, not just the worst case scenarios. It is up to the owners to think of a system to make all teams sustainable since it will involve sacrifices from the richest teams.
Why should players bite the bullet for the teams losing money instead of other owners biting the bullet? The higher tax rate is an interesting solution, assuming that it doesn’t subvert the sharing split between owners and players.
The main problem with the split issue is that it is impossible to really forecast the future of the league and the economy with detailed accuracy so the split is going to remain debatable. It isn’t surprising that the players are reluctant to leave an enormous chunk of change on the table moving from one CBA to the next.
I am not sure if I feel that all teams should be able to make a profit in a given year. If a team made particularly bad moves like the Knicks under Isiah Thomas, you would hope that they would be unprofitable while the league as a whole remains profitable. If owners are willing to risk profitability to win (like Cuban early on as owner), that is their prerogative. On the other hand, we need a system where the teams that are non-competitive members of the league (for example, Milwaukee) can be profitable as another form of entertainment for fans in Milwaukee despite a likely future of being no better than mediocre. The good teams can only play if they have teams to play against, so they need the less competitive teams to be able to stay afloat even if ticket sales don’t bring those teams much revenue.
guava_wrench - October 31, 2011
You asked, so....
Remember “It’s the economy, stupid!”, the old campaign line of the Clinton team years ago. This touches that nerve in much the same way. I am not biased for NBA owners but I’ve never met a union I liked. And this one strikes me as tone deaf given the economy they are in. Practically every corner of the economy – towns & unions, business sectors, countries, has seen budget bubbles burst, business models clobbered. Every college graduate today if they find a job is seeing less starting salary than a few years ago.
Why do I care? A deal is holding up what I like to watch. The owners claim large league-wide losses and in this Wikipedia age where information is hard to hide the Players Association hasn’t been able to disavow that. Thus I buy it. Therefore, in my mind, the players are the larger problem.
And finally, you or Jeff are provoking comment with your subject posting. Post one on Wall Street greed and I’m in on that one too. I understand there are people with the “Why can’t we all just get along” dreamy view but contract negotiations are a competiton and for now it’s all we got.
Wildblu1 - October 31, 2011
I am generally an Equal Opportunity Hater ....but don't get me started on Politics....it 's bad for mey health
Master Po - October 31, 2011
"Equality"....POlitical correctness at it`s finest!
Title 18 - October 31, 2011
I think I agree
If this dispute did not happen to coincide with the larger societal recession/economy issue—if it happened before the real estate bubble burst—the arguments would be much less intense.
Also, speaking personally, some of the energy that would normally be spent yelling at the tube and saying things like “Baby, you dunce!” is now spent saying things like “Master Po, you dunce!” LOL
However, I still think the players are bums.
Eeyore III - October 31, 2011
wow....you hater LOL
Master Po - October 31, 2011
Important point that needed to be made
I have found the partisanship in this bizarre. The sides are negotiating. There is really no sense in picking a side because even the 2 parties involved don’t really know the future and the full implications of what they are bargaining for.
guava_wrench - October 31, 2011
to clarify, I meant that Roy was making an important point in his piece, not that I was making that point.
guava_wrench - October 31, 2011
The difference to me, is risk assumed (or total lack thereof)
Every player has a guaranteed salary. Sign a contract, money is guaranteed. No risk of loss, at all. It is sure. With owners, there is risk involved. They lay out the capital and hope that the product can return a profit, but there’s certainly no guarantee, and clearly, many are presently losing money. I have no particular dog in this hunt, but in a situation where one side is presently losing money, and the other isn’t, and it’s all coming out of one pie, it seems pretty clear which side will have to concede. It’s just a matter of how much the concessions will be.
Mencius - October 31, 2011
greater risk, greater reward
this is always been the case with businesses.
are the owners more exposed?
of course.
do they stand to make profits that dwarf the players fortunes when they cash in their investment?
you bet.
that some teams lose money while other make it goes to show there are a lot of nuances to running a team.
to me, the owners are playing the too-big-to-fail card and the players will have to again and again bail out the executives poor decisions. why not consider revenue sharing? maybe b/c the greedy tycoons would rather take skin off the work forces back.
And about contracts — what’s the point if they aren’t guaranteed?
I don’t get why these white collar clowns need to be ‘idiot proofed’
That said, these players need to look at the score board and waive the white flag.
Are they being treated unfair?
sure
Does anyone care?
no, not really.
D Dub - October 31, 2011
an impassioned plea...
perhaps for neutrality by Mr Hobbs. And well done.
Tom Halzack - November 1, 2011
But you are so openly anti player in your comments
It’s ironic that you are writing about “not taking sides.” I look at the players as the lesser of two evils, they are not the good side in “good vs evil.”
kg2128 - November 1, 2011
No, I'm not "anti-player"
As mentioned:
Personally, I think the owners are probably losing money, and I don’t think there’s any inherent right for players to make 57% or 54.5% or 52%. However, if this comes back as a 52.5% / 47.5% split, I couldn’t care less. I don’t have a rooting interest, other than that the sides shut up and start the games.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
This is exactly the type of response I just can’t understand, when people say there’s no ‘inherent right’ for the players to earn more than the owners. The fact is that, inherently, without basketball players, there is no NBA. If Stern and the other owners want to strap on some high tops and get out on the hardwoord and see if they can attract the crowds, I’d love to see it.
Sure, the owners organize the league and put down the down payments on making the game available to millions of people worldwide. But ultimately, none of that is possible without the players. The owners pay the best basketball players in the world to play in a league so that they can profit off of it. Without the owners, basketball still exists. Without the players, there is no basketball.
As for the owners ‘probably’ losing money, there are plenty of articles out there demonstrating how any team accountant can turn a $5 million dollar profit into a $10 million loss. Articles by people like Malcolm Gladwell demonstrating, clearly, that there really isn’t much to this supposed ‘loss’ owners are incurring.
But even disregarding that, when you talk about inherent rights, I think that you have to look at the inherent nature of the business of the NBA. Owners give players a showcase, but it’s ultimately the player’s talents that make the money, not the arenas or the hot dogs or the marketing or whatever else you want to attribute to the owners. Sure, both sides are filthy rich, but one side is contributing a lot more than the other, I think, inherently.
greentown - November 1, 2011
There are no inherent rights...
… only what the two sides agree to.
The two sides are symbiotic. Without the NBA and the owners, the players wouldn’t have the stage they have, and the game wouldn’t be as big as it is. Without the players, the owners wouldn’t be able to fill their arenas.
The fact of the matter is, both sides are going to receive billions of dollars, no matter how the deal is split. I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for any of them. It’s bad enough that we have to put up with the lockout, without fans getting fired up and choosing sides.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Not so sure there isn't a good guy
I believe one side has a better prevailing argument in a CBA world. The players. They might not be “good” but they have the right to get the best deal they can.
thereallargejames - November 1, 2011
Both sides "have the right" to get the best deal they can...
This is a negotiation, and neither has to settle for a deal they don’t want. That doesn’t give either of them the moral high ground, though.
If you think the side that is fighting for long guaranteed contracts for the Eddy Currys, Mark Blounts, and Vin Bakers of the world is the one that is made up of “good guys”, I think you’re misguided. Neither side has clean hands.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Every workplace has loafers, and you know what happens? They lose credibility, and they lose their jobs. I mean, aren’t all 3 of those players you just named (and who have been named endlessly in other arenas, it seems, as examples of how ‘lazy’ players are) NOTORIOUS for being slouches? Every business makes bad hires. I’m supposed to feel bad for the owners because they spent a few extra mil on Blount? There were plenty of people who didn’t like Blount before the C’s signed him. Do the owners have anyone to blame but themselves?
Why should they have to cut everybody’s salary because of a few bad apples? It’s a disingenuous argument.
greentown - November 1, 2011
I don’t think I expressed myself clearly. What I mean is, bad hires get made, but soon enough, player’s character comes out for what it is, and the league owners should adjust accordingly. It happens in every business, but it’s no reason to stop paying players as much because of it, none.
greentown - November 1, 2011
Of course it's a reason...
In the typical business, owners fire the “bad hires”, and take steps to make sure they don’t make the same mistakes. The owners are negotiating for greater flexibility to do just that.
Sure, owners (and GMs) make bad decisions, and they should be criticized for it. At the same time, that doesn’t excuse the players from failing to play up to the best of their ability.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
You honestly think that the majority of players who play hard every night to help their team win and to entertain the fans deserve to make less money because Mark Blount is a lazy jerk?
greentown - November 2, 2011
I'm sympathetic to the desire to have shorter / less guaranteed contracts...
Not only for the Mark Blounts and Eddy Currys of the world (along with many, many others), but for those who see their bodies deteriorate due to poor conditioning habits or injury.
Look at a guy like Brandon Roy. He “deserved” his deal when he got it, but having long, huge money, guaranteed deals on Portland’s cap isn’t a good thing for the fans, the league, or the other, better players who could get paid more if Roy wasn’t getting his guarantees.
In the end, the two sides will do what they’ve gotta do, but some more flexibility with contracts would ultimately do both sides some good. The total amount of money the players would be seeing with less guaranteed deals would be the same, it would simply be distributed to better, more able players.
Roy_Hobbs - November 2, 2011
You certainly have a point, but that’s an issue that’s been conceded already, from my understanding, in negotiations. And the players conceded it. I as speaking in regards to the final hurdle, the asking the players to come all the way down to a 50/50 split. If the owners want to sign shorter contracts, I think there are some valid points there, but there is no reason the the players’ share of league revenue has to come down from 57% to 50% because some guys don’t work hard. It’s just not an honest argument, I feel. Especially since in some cases you can accuse the owners of the same thing.
greentown - November 2, 2011
Honestly, I don't care that much -- or at all -- about the BRI split.
Some give back made sense, but I doubt whatever they agree on changes the game much. It certainly won’t effect my life in a positive or negative way, so I’m not stressing.
Roy_Hobbs - November 2, 2011
Problems with site?
I just posted response to Roy and it looks like it was taken down. Any explanation as to why that happened?
thereallargejames - November 1, 2011
Your comment was removed because you were confrontational and insulting...
Rather than start a flame war, your comment was taken down.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Something I seldom hear mentioned
is that the CBA the owners are so eager to rip up and throw away is the one that they forced on the players at the last work stoppage. They were generally considered the “winners” the last time out, standing firm on negotiations until the players “caved.” Well, they got what they wanted, and they still couldn’t (according to them) make a profit. Perhaps the problem isn’t the CBA, but the owners’ own lack of business acumen.
That said, it would probably make the most sense to create a third category in the BRI split: non-salary related player expenses (NSRPE). This would cover things like travel, food, facilities, health insurance. These are things that players benefit from directly (as opposed to executive and operational staff salaries), and they should be willing to share in the cost.
The advantage of this is two-fold. 1)It sets a standard amount that will be spent on player upkeep to maintain a baseline of amenities and 2) it also give the owners better cost predictability over up and down economic times. If an owner wishes to spend more than the NSRPE amount on perqs for the players, it comes out of the owner’s pocket. While that potentially reduces his profit, exceeding the figure would also mean above-average amenities for the players, which would draw talent and likely improve the quality of play. Better players may translate into more profit.
Either way, by tying this additional expense to BRI, it reduces the discretionary costs where owners can fail to profit.
Another point that isn’t made often enough in my opinion: BRI split doesn’t effect bad contracts. Even if all of the owners only issue good contracts and stay under the cap, 57% of the BRI gets distributed to the players. Whatever doesn’t get spent up front gets paid out to the players as a distribution after the fact.
Section301 - November 1, 2011
I think it's fair to say that the owners made a bad deal last time...
That doesn’t necessarily mean they have to live with the consequences forever, though.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Agreed
But they wrote it. Which gives me less faith that, left to their own devices, they’ll do any better of a job at it this time.
I really think both sides need to radically re-think their approach. None of the solutions that either side is offering seems to address the central problems they say they face. Fixing the BRI split doesn’t make better contracts. Making better contracts doesn’t create profits for the owners (because they still have to spend up to the BRI). Guaranteeing the BRI doesn’t get better wages for the best performers, and guaranteeing bad contracts just takes money that might otherwise be spent on the best players and spends it on the undeserving and reduces the quality of the product on the floor.
Section301 - November 1, 2011
Thanks Roy
I guess it’s okay for you to say I’m “misguided” and let that stand. I think that’s an insult. Would you agree?
thereallargejames - November 1, 2011
No, and if you felt insulted, I apologize.
I don’t think it’s insulting to tell other people that you think that they are wrong, or that their reasoning is misguided. It’s hard to have a debate / discussion without acknowledging the basic fact of disagreement.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Agreed on the latter point
I’ve spent a large part of my adult life working as, with and for labor. So, to call my opinion misguided may not be insult to you but I think it’s pretty condescending. A lot of strong points are being made on this site about labor and unions. I’ve mainly stayed out of the discussion for many reasons but occasionally I’ve logged in to voice brief opinions. It’s a real shortcoming of this site to force people not to talk about “politics” when labor relations and the intersection of commerce, entertainment, athletics, culture and race are inherently political (among other things.) I’ll go run the picket fence for a while.
thereallargejames - November 1, 2011
A couple of points...
1. Politics can be discussed, but only in the forums. The front page is for basketball; and
2. I see this dispute as inherently different than most labor union issues, due to salaries and the power of the players.
Roy_Hobbs - November 1, 2011
Welll in many of the very front pages these days....
Labor vs. management has been discussed. That is political.
thereallargejames - November 1, 2011
hey LJ
You see LJ….this the business we have chosen….no room for labor, unions…etc….it’s business…LOL
Master Po - November 1, 2011
Not sure I understand the reference..
IsItTheShoes - November 2, 2011 via iPhone app
Oi vay
Godfather Part II – only the greatest movie ever!!!!
nickagneta - November 2, 2011
No I knew it was the Godfather ha haaa. Just didn’t understand why Master Po referenced it lol
IsItTheShoes - November 2, 2011 via iPhone app
inside joke with LJ...that's all
Master Po - November 2, 2011
and ieven the inside joke was a stretch as it doesn't make much sense
but I did get to quote the greatest movie of all time …or close
Master Po - November 2, 2011
It’s always the right time to quote Godfather II
IsItTheShoes - November 2, 2011 via iPhone app
Roy and I....
have pretty much been on opposite sides of this discussion for the get go. Roy believes the owners are losing money and the system is broken and needs fixing. I believe the owners are being extremely deceptive about losses and the system isn’t broken but does need tweaking and that if there is a reason for losses it can be attributed to a horrible television deal negotiated by David Stern and some poor management on the owners part.
That said I think we agree on many things:
1. There is no right and wrong here, its a business negotiation.
2. In business each side of a negotiation has the right to ask for whatever they want and be stringent in their demands.
3. Both sides are negotiating for the public’s opinion hoping to paint the other as the bad guys. The NBPA playing on the feelings of pro-labor people and the average guy getting screwed by his boss, the owners playing on the feelings of being business owners losing huge money to undeserving employees. Its all propaganda aimed at the public to sway opinion and will work against both sides when people become indifferent with a protracted lockout.
4. We are both angry because there is no basketball and the people we blame are both the players and the owners, equally.
Now we might have different opinions on this as do Master Po and I, but we understand that there’s no reason to get heated over it because ultimately, there’s nothing we can do except wait for these dangnabbit players and flimflambitty owners to end this and give us NBA basketball once again.
nickagneta - November 2, 2011
Yes, and I would add to that...
… that neither one of us is going to care very much at all whether the owners cave, or the players collapse, or whether they meet in the middle. While I understand motivations here, I think it’s an exercise in futility to “pick sides”.
Roy_Hobbs - November 2, 2011
Yup
That too. Let’s just end this thing so Roy can write his FAQ About the Salary Cap 2011 Edition and we can all try to figure out the best way to tell Danny how to manage the new CBA system, who to sign, who to trade and start telling Doc how to coach and cheering on our men in Green.
nickagneta - November 2, 2011
What would Cousy and Heinsohn say about that?
First and second presidents of the NBPA. They negotiated pensions, health plans, per diems, etc…They had to threaten to strike the All Star game to get some chincy concession from owners. Please. This was the first player’s union of the four major sports in the US. Thank you Cous and Tommy.
thereallargejames - November 2, 2011
Basketball in the 60s and 70s was simply a different business...
Now, I don’t think anybody can really talk about the players being oppressed, when a chump like Eddy Curry has earned something like $70 million to date. I’m sure Tommy and Cous would have a lot to say if they were speaking candidly, not only about the owners but the players as well.
Roy_Hobbs - November 2, 2011
Well we can't speak for them
But just remember, Ronald Reagan was once the President of SAG. One of the reasons that basketball is different these days is because of player’s union. Another is because Stern, the owners and the players have made the game global. Also, owners are no longer simply the owner of one team. The tend to be owners of many ventures – mega corporate. Money is made off of the labor of the players and that has not changed. In this day and age when unions have been so demonized, it’s heartening to see NBPA stand together. That there are a few slobs in the membership, as is the case fore every union, does not make the union itself irrelevant. That argument is classic management discourse and is the first thing dispelled in any CBA. Finally, if you don’t want be people getting passionate about this issue then don’t write about it. If you do write about it, then expect these kind of responses. This is not “futile” as you are suggesting above.
thereallargejames - November 2, 2011
I just don't think there's any connection between today's NBA player and the "working man".
None. I think those who lump the NBAPA together with typical labor unions actually do a disservice to the latter, because it makes non-affiliated folks a lot less sympathetic.
Roy_Hobbs - November 2, 2011
Come on.....
I don’t have to stick up for Roy as he’s a big boy but he wrote an article about the futility of why the average person should be picking sides when the two sides care about one thing, getting their share of $4 billion a year.
They don’t care about us, the average Joe who watches them on television, buys their gear to wear, and goes to the games. If they did this would have been settled by now. Both sides are at best greedy millionaires and worst greedy billionaires. Roy has stated many times neither side is right or wrong. There is no “fair” or “unfair” in this dispute. Its a business negotiation and there’s little need to get emotionally wrapped up in it.
Understand this isn’t the local IBEW in a dispute with a local electric company who wants to cut wages, eliminate overtime, stop contributions to pensions and cut 20% of the labor force. This isn’t the local iron workers union fighting to get a cost of living wage and dental coverage because their wages have been frozen for 5 years and they have been paying more and more of their health benefits.
I come from a union family. My wife and brothers and sister are union members. But there’s a huge difference between professional athletic unions and the unions you and I are familiar with. I respect your pro union stance but remember, these players are MILLIONAIRES and the owners BILLIONAIRES. They don’t care about us. They care about getting a larger share of a huge yearly pile of money so large, we can’t even conceive of the size of that pile.
So cut Roy some slack, he’s just trying to write an article and keep the peace.
nickagneta - November 2, 2011
Well I disagree
To de-historicize the NBPA and say it has nothing to do with working people is inaccurate. First, before the owners recognized the NBPA, members went to the AFL-CIO for help and solidarity. Second, the fact that the NBPA has members that live and work in right to work states like Florida and Texas can in some measure empower other unions to do the same. It doesn’t matter that they are millionaires. What matters is that they are exercising their right to collectively bargain and that should be highly praised these days. The fact that the owners and players don’t care about the fans existed long before the lock out. That you have to pay 15 bucks for a beer and hot dog is proof enough. The fact that the players might be selfish, poorly educated, etc…was the case long before labor conflicts emerged.
thereallargejames - November 2, 2011
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of CelticsBlog to post a comment.