Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V5 #230

[Michael Joseph Byrnes <mbyrnes@leland.Stanford.EDU>]

Noah Evans wrote:

> Yeah but it's the owners fault if they do. Nobody forced them to sign player
> contracts for as much as they do. If an owner loses money it's because of
> their own stupidity.

This is probably the only point of yours which I agree with.  (Apparently,
Paul Gaston does, too.)

> > Third:  If this wonderful cooperative, player owned league of yours ever
> > comes to fruition, you can bet there will be just as much
> > money-grubbing, in-fighting, petty squabbling as there is now.
> 
> Yes but the pie will be smaller. Ideally it would work like as Sam's Club or
> any other direct service or merchandise provider. By cutting out
> unneccessary fat(i.e. owner profits), there would be more to go around(for
> fan's and players).

Well, I guess it's time to do away with 2+ centuries of capitalism in the
United States!!!

To call owner profits "unnecessary fat" is naive and untrue.  What has
stopped NBA players from starting their own league before now?  If every
NBA player decided to retire tomorrow, and form their own league, there is
absolutely *nothing* the owners could do to stop it.  Nor has their ever
been anything stopping the players from making such a move - except the
fact that a "player's league" simply wouldn't fly.  If it were a realistic
option, it would have happened a decade ago.

The owners are just as essential to the sport as the players.  Where
exactly would the games in this "player's league" take place?  I don't see
the players all chipping in to buy stadiums (or finance their
construction).  What about all of the fringe benefits today's players
have, such as free (and often expensive!) medical care, travel expenses 
including per diem meal money that I could live on for over a week, chartered 
flights, pensions, etc.)?  Fact of ther matter is, an NBA player making the 
minimum salary is leading a charmed life, at least in some respects.

Finally, a "player's league" would be worse to watch than today's NBA
because it would really be a "star player's league".  Who would have more
power over the Boston Celtics, for example - Antoine Walker or Bruce
Bowen? The number of players in the NBA who have any sense of how to run a
team from the management side are few and far between.  The number of
*star* players with this talent could probably be counted on one hand.

Even if it were feasible, a "players league" would very quickly decline
into a WWF-type situation.  

Bottom line:  the players and owners need each other.  The sooner both
sides admit and accept that crucial fact, the sooner they will be able to
reach an acceptable solution. 

As for profits, owners and players are entitled to their fair share.  What
consistutes "their fair share"?  That is what the collective bargaining
system is supposed to determine.  
   
> Because however much "respect" he got would correlate with the team
> performance(i.e. better team=more profits="respect" for antoine's
> pocketbook).

Of course, the big-market/small-market issue would still apply to a
players' league.  The Toronto Raptors are *always* going to have smaller
profits than the Boston Celtics, regardless of the quality of each team.

And, how would contract disputes bettwen two players on the same team be
settled?  

> > Fourth: Why should they ever want to start their own league?  The
> > players, even average ones, can become multi-millionaires right now with
> > absolutely no financial risk to themselves.  If they take over the
> > league, they will also assume the risk.
> 
> Yes, exactly. They would also get *all* of the profits. However much they
> got would correlate exactly with how well they performed.

Assuming, of course, that there would be any profits to get.  There
probably would be, but not in the same league with the profits the players
currently make.

Michael Byrnes
mbyrnes@stanford.edu