[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Peter Vecsey Solves The NBA Crisis
[New York Post]
SPORTS
HOW NBA CAN SAVE ITS SEASON
By PETER VECSEY
--------------------------------------------
THE NBA's late collective bargaining
agreement compelled owners to pay out more
than they were taking it. Hence, roughly
400 players pocketed an expense-free 57.1
percent of the revenue last season. The 29
owners, after paying the total tab,
subdivided what was left. So much for an
equal partnership.
Fairness, of course, is in the conscience
of the negotiator. If the agent-controlled
union and its membership is determined to
maintain such starkly uneven percentages,
the odds against reaching a settlement any
time soon appears remote.
Clearly, the old system (if we accept the
premise that the players and owners are,
indeed, partners) didn't balance out for
both sides.
At the same time, it's just as clear no
one's sure the new system - that would
assure a 50-50 split - would work even had
the union not disdainfully rejected it.
Meanwhile, the clock on the season is
dangerously ticking as David Stern and
Billy Hunter, after a ridiculously long
lull, meet today for the most meaningful
bargaining session in the league's 52-year
history. Without hardly trying, the
commissioner and the union's executive
director have only themselves to thank
should a 24-game violation, or worse, be
committed.
Later for assigning the appropriate guilty;
there will always be an opportunity for
guys like me to publicly flog those
derelict in their duties should they
negotiate themselves down from their
exalted place in the sports chain.
All I know is, if egos get any more frayed
and the proposed system gets any more
complicated, it'll be impossible to patch
up their differences should the successful
partners walk away in a huff from the
bargaining table this time around.
The next thing you know, the commissioner
will be canceling the season (unlikely, I
submit, until February), as if that'll
prove something. Like what? How tough the
owners are? How unified the players are?
How uncaring they are about their fans? How
many people they'll put out of work? How,
as Patrick Union insists, this is about
principles, integrity and survival? (If
this is the way Patrick plans to negotiate
his divorce, Rita is going to get
everything)
Or, more to the point, how both sides are
so rich they can afford to be stupid and
stubborn?
Again, the cancellation of the season would
prove nothing and solve less. Does anyone
who bothers to think this out honestly
believe extinction will resolve any issues
or result in bringing the two sides closer
together? It figures to create such
bitterness they might not meet again for
six months.
All along I've felt Stern and Hunter were
too smart, and those they represent earned
far too much to strangle the golden goose
on purpose. Strange as it may seem, despite
the flagrant lack of accomplishment and
activity since discussions regarding a new
deal began seven months ago, I'm still
confident reason will seep to the top.
Unless, of course, the players know another
way of averaging $2.6M ($3.1M four years
from now) for six months of playing a game
two hours a day.
Enough is enough as long as you're
guaranteed a five percent raise each year
on your billion dollar share of the action,
I always say.
"If the season is canceled, we're gonna
have to learn the most important six words
of our lives," a local free agent muttered
months ago, only half in jest. "You want
fries with that, sir?"
To avoid such a disturbing crash course
(reality check), I challenge both sides to
put their money where their ideals are. If
no satisfactory compromise is on the
horizon ... if the players, mistrustful of
the owners, find it impossible to believe
(in spite of their certified accountants
having access to the books) many teams are
losing millions ... if they feel there's no
cure for the contagious disease called
hardening of the categories, I defy them to
accept my terms.
Unfortunately, that would mean the two
partners would no longer be able to hide
behind conveniently cloudy issues (excuses)
such as The Bird Exception, Escrow Fund,
Luxury Tax, Hard Cap, Percentages of
Basketball Related Income and whatever else
they're shoveling across the table at each
other.
I say, if both sides really want to show
they mean business, instead of looking to
ruin it, adopt a simple system in which
there would be no salary cap, no restraints
or restrictions, whatsoever. Make as much
as your entourage can expend. In return,
you're only entitled to a one-year
guarantee, two seasons of security at the
very most.
Think you should be paid like a star? Let's
see how you handle the pressure and
competition on an everyday basis. Think you
can affect the stands and/or the standings?
Think you can make the difference? Be the
go-to guy. Be the ultimate role player? Do
the dirty work? Take over a game? Take a
team to the playoffs? Turn around a
franchise? Lead it to a championship?
Deserve more than anyone else?
Prove it. Then prove it again next year and
the year after that. Just like most of
mankind is forced to do. Just like Michael
Jordan has been doing the last two years,
one MVP and scoring title season at a time.
I've never heard a solitary soul complain
he's overpaid. In fact, if anything, he's
underpaid considering his superior
standards and regular elite achievement
level.
Since basketball players are more
entertainers than athletes in any other
sport, let them be paid like big-screen
stars, most of whom get paid by the movie.
And you're only as good as your last movie
or two.
Which reminds me, when's the last time
Patrick Union made a good move?
How great would that be if you're the
paying public. Come to a game, even one
that figures to be lopsided, and know
you're going to get your money's worth in
terms of unselfish team work and individual
hustle.
Every possession and performance would be
contested and consequential. Every night
pride and profit would be on the line.
Every player would have something
substantial to lose and win. Every game
would have a serrated edge. The most
obvious downside of this system? The NBA
might very well turn into 29 rotating
rosters. Another possible drawback? As one
All-Star I consulted on the idea contends,
"Four or five big-time or warm-weather
cities would attract all the best players."
Maybe. But last time I paid attention back
in June, there was only room for just so
much salary at each of the five positions
per team. There's only enough playing time,
shots and celebrity to go around if the
plan is to win with a minimum of clashing.
If there isn't enough elite talent to
spread around the smaller market cities, it
confirms the fact a number of players have
been stealing their paychecks all these
years. It only means the NBA's watered-down
product has been exposed.
Which is why nobody on either side will
dare accept the above ground rules.
Especially the agents. The last thing
they're about to gamble big on, I suspect,
is their client's consistency and
stability.
My answer to that is, the NBA can't do
without owners and it can't do without
players. But it can do very nicely without
agents.