Analysis: Players
association blunders badly
Union waging a fight it
can't possibly win, leaving
season on brink of
cancellation
By Chris
McCosky /
The
Detroit
News
AUBURN
HILLS --
The NBA,
which once
proudly
hailed
itself as the only
professional sports league
free of labor strife, is on
the brink of becoming the
first to have a season
canceled because of it.
How in the world did
this happen?
There is no short answer
to that question, but when
the historians write this
all up, it probably will be
a sub-section in the final
chapter on the 20th Century
entitled: "The Blunting of
the Labor Union."
Starting in the 1980s,
when President Reagan fired
the striking Air Traffic
Controllers through more
recent cases such as the
UAW-Caterpillar fight, the
General Motors strike last
summer and at Federal
Express, in which the
striking pilots ultimately
went back to work to avoid
being replaced, the end of
this millennium has been
marked by management
wresting control of their
companies and industries
away from the unions and
their workers.
The economic landscape
at this time, with workers
making more money than ever
and profit margins getting
slimmer and slimmer, hardly
has been conducive to labor
upheavals.
And when people look
back and ask how there could
have been labor discord in
an industry that generated a
growing revenue base of $2
billion, in which the owners
were willing to give their
employees a 50-50 split of
revenue, an industry in
which the minimum salary was
nearly $300,000, the median
salary more than $1 million
and the average salary at
$2.6 million, they certainly
will look at the players
association and say, "What
the hell were you thinking?"
Let's face it, the NBA
is where it is today because
of two things: blind
arrogance on the part of the
leaders of the players
association and blind faith
in those leaders by the
players themselves.
You can dispute the
numbers and the percentages
all you want. You can argue
all the moral and legal
issues. You even can argue
that the owners are being
greedy because they want to
ensure at least marginal
profits for even their most
inept franchises. Which is
true.
But given the economic
climate, it is also
irrelevant.
The fact is, the owners
have every right to take
control of their industry,
they have the financial
power to get it done and,
given that the players do
not have a viable option
other than the NBA, they
have all the leverage.
The owners made no
secret of their mission.
They were going to do
whatever it took to find a
legal method for controlling
salaries, a method that
would become ultimately the
model for all professional
sports.
That method, of course,
would be built around the
hard salary cap, which would
put a ceiling what each team
could spend on salaries.
And, again, the owners made
it clear they would not
accept a deal without it.
Thus, the players
association had two choices:
It could negotiate the best
deal possible for its
players under the
restrictions of a hard cap
-- a deal that would limit
salaries at the high end but
increase salaries at the
low- and middle-income
levels, and maintain
substantial yearly raises
without losing money or
games -- or it could
commence to fight a war it
could not win.
Sadly, the union chose
the latter, and we are now
on the brink of losing the
entire NBA season.
Union mistakes
It's not that they
weren't warned. Former union
president and former
part-owner Isiah Thomas was
one of the first to plead
with the union.
Now is not the time to
dig in and fight, he warned.
The owners are too strong
and too committed. Save the
fight for another day.
Others, too, former
players, business leaders,
economic experts, advised
against waging a labor war.
Nobody was listening.
Instead, superagent David
Falk lined up his henchmen
-- Billy Hunter, Michael
Jordan and the Georgetown
mafia (Patrick Ewing,
Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo
Mourning, all Falk clients
who happen to lead the union
negotiating team) -- and
proceeded to bamboozle the
rank and file into enlisting
for a doomsday mission.
We are the product, the
NBA cannot survive without
us, the union heads preached
to their choir. They think
we are weak, that we will
cave in. But if we stay
strong, stay unified, they
will crack. We can't survive
without a soft cap, they
can't survive without us --
stay together and we will
win.
That was the first of
many miscalculations made by
the union.
The union leaders told
the players not to worry,
there will never be a
lockout. We will get a court
order, and they will lift
it.
The court ruled against
the players.
The union leaders told
the players not to worry, we
are filing for arbitration
and those with guaranteed
salaries will be paid during
the lockout. The owners will
cave in then.
The arbitrator ruled
against the players.
The union leaders told
the players not to worry,
the league will never cancel
the start of the season.
The first month was
canceled.
The union leaders told
the players not to worry,
they will never cancel the
Christmas games because of
their television contract
with ABC.
All December games were
canceled.
The union leaders told
the players not to worry,
they will never cancel the
All-Star Game.
All-Star
Game,
canceled.
Now,
the union
is trying
to
convince
its
players
that the
league will never cancel the
season. Hello? If any
players are keeping score,
the union is 0-5. Do you
still want to trust them on
No. 6?
The entire premise of
the union's fight has been
arrogant and wrong-minded
from the start.
To initiate a fight on
the premise that the league
cannot survive without the
players, and not have
another option where the
players could make the same
amount of money, was a bit
shaky.
Just ask the folks from
CART. They argued on the
premise that the drivers
made the Indianapolis
Speedway. Indy felt
different and locked out the
CART racers. Now, CART is
suffering financially, and
Indy is still selling out
every race.
But on top that, the
union also has misread or
misrepresented whom this
fight was between. Because,
when you get right to the
core, it has never been
between NBA Commissioner
David Stern and the players.
Billy Hunter and Falk
have sold the players on the
image of Stern as a sly fox
who has been trying to
extricate the players from
their fortunes for years.
Nothing could be further
from the truth.
Stern has softened the
owners' proposal and has
incurred the wrath of some
owners in the process. The
owners want a hard cap,
period. No exceptions. Stern
has got them to consider the
escrow proposal, the luxury
tax, and modifying rather
than killing the Bird
exception.
If you listen carefully,
Stern has never ripped the
players publicly. If
anything, he has been
sympathetic. He knows that
when this is all said and
done, it will be the job of
his office to restore the
luster to these players so
he can sell them to the
public again.
No, Stern's fight, on
behalf of the 29 owners, is
not with the players.
Stern's fight is to gain a
legal means to contain the
costs of his industry. Thus,
his fight is really with
Falk and the superagents
who, through means of legal
extortion, have driven the
salaries out of control.
Legal extortion? What
else do you call it when
Falk, whose stable of
clients include a virtual
monopoly of the richest
players in the game, can say
to an owner, "Unless you pay
Client A this amount of
money, I will make sure you
never sign Client B, who is
a free agent this year."
There is nothing covert
about the league's plan. The
owners want to approach a
level of cost certainty so
that the industry can
continue to make significant
profits. Is this not the
goal of any business? And is
it not true that as a
company's profits grow, so
do the income levels of its
employees?
Of course.
And here is another
false premise: union
solidarity.
If Hunter was convinced
that his players were as
unified and committed to the
cause as he claims, he would
submit the owners proposal
to a secret-ballot vote.
He'll never do it because he
knows it would pass
convincingly.
All the rhetoric and
posturing aside, the union's
fight is ultimately for the
benefit of a very small
percentage of players. But
that small percentage earns
the highest percentage of
salary, making it a very
loud and powerful minority
who has effectively shouted
the majority of players into
submission.
Backed into a corner
So now the players are
backed into a no-win corner.
Already out hundreds of
millions of dollars, the
players seemingly have to
swallow their pride and give
in to the owners' plan, or
continue martyring
themselves for a lost cause.
Sad, because it could
have been painlessly
avoided. Instead of, as
agent Harold MacDonald put
it, "falling on the sword
for a soft cap," the union
should have recognized the
strength of the owners'
position and worked the best
deal possible within those
parameters.
For example:
Knowing the owners were
looking for cost certainty
with a hard cap, the union
could have worked out a
revenue-sharing plan. A
negotiated profit level
could be assigned for each
team. If that profit level
was exceeded, the overage
would be distributed back to
the players.
Also, recognizing that a
hard cap would separate
further the rich from the
poor, the union could have
negotiated a plan that would
have bolstered middle-income
players -- who, by the way,
make up the majority of
players.
By putting a limit on
individual salaries -- which
the owners already have
called for -- and by placing
an aggregate limit on any
group of three players, more
money would be available per
team.
For example, and the
percentages are picked
arbitrarily here, no player
could exceed 25 percent of
the payroll and no more than
three players combined could
make more than 50 percent.
Copyright 1998,
The Detroit News