The large assumption in this labor strife in the NBA has been there is something of a divide amongst the owners. Big market teams have been able to spend wildly and rake in cash because of their access and popularity while small market teams have been scrounging to put together a roster, fill the stadium and compete. The assumption has been that the problem is figuring out this divide and the owners have been asking the players to help them bridge this divide.
After all, David Stern has continually told the players in negotiations that you cannot revenue share your way to a profit.
Whether this divide actually exists is a complete mystery. Kevin Ding of The Orange County Register reports that Lakers owner Jerry Buss is not planning on standing in the way of a hard salary cap system that would greatly limit how much he can spend. And nobody’s team has been as successful since the current system was set up in 1999 than Buss’ Lakers — five titles, seven Finals appearances in 13 years.
If the owners are united in this desire to have a hard salary cap, that puts the battle squarely on the players to figure out what to do with that. And with the players, the hard cap seems to be a non-starter. That might mean we are in it for the long haul.
But why is the hard cap such a non-starter? If the players are getting the same share of basketball-related income with a soft cap as they would in any new hard cap system, what is the real difference to them? Why is there no middle ground on this one issue?
These are the questions the Derek Fisher has to be asking his constituents this week as he meets with several of the players in Las Vegas and throughout the country. Why does this issue matter so much?
Tom Ziller of SB Nation is really upset by the idea that something as like the structure of the salary cap could derail the entire season. By all reports, the players and owners have come close to solving one of the BIG issues in collective bargaining — the player’s share of the basketball related income. The players have always been willing to come down from the 57 percent they got in the previous deal, just not to the extremes the owners suggested. Now it appears they have found a number that works well for both of them.
Now, the owners have a good sense of how much money they will get each season and how much will be diverted to salaries. That is a big hurdle to clear.
But the issue now is how do you sort out which players get what? This is where the issues of competitive balance come in and guaranteeing the owners make good on the investments they make, or have a simple way to get out of them.
This is where the player’s divide is going to truly determine how long this lockout goes.
Ziller does a really good job laying out what a hard cap would do for the players and the owners and the pitfalls and benefits for each side. On one hand for the owners, it allows them to have some cost certainty and limits their spending. On the other, it means low-revenue teams might have to spend more to get to the cap number and satisfy the market for free agent players. For the players, a hard cap probably means non-guaranteed deals or some way for teams to cut their losses and stay under the cap. On the other, players might be able to cash in more quickly on good play rather than having to wait for a contract year like they do in the NFL.
There is some give and take. But Ziller points out that there is very little proof that the hard cap solves the NBA’s problems with competitive balance and increasing the number of teams turning a profit.
If the owners are digging in for a fight on this, they must believe the players will cave at some point. And that is where the player’s divide will really be felt.
There are classes of NBA players, and the fight to prevent a hard cap is coming from a distinct group of them — the NBA’s middle class. The mid-level exception was a gigantic carrot for middle-tier players in the league. To know you could get a guaranteed four-year deal worth upwards of around $25 million was a solid guarantee to have.
These are the guys who never know when their careers are going to end. Never will make an All Star Game. Never will be the star on any team. These are the guys Derek Fisher is really fighting for.
And he should be, these are his constituents and everyone on the NBPA executive committee — aside from Chris Paul — falls into this middle class category. And those are the players fighting to keep a system that has greatly benefited them — remember, the concern in 1998 when the league implemented current collective bargaining agreement was runaway superstar salaries and give more money to the middle.
The two sides are much closer now to saving the season than they were in June. The two sides are serious about getting something done. But solving the middle-class issue is something the two sides — and more likely the players — will have to come to grips with.
The owners will get their hard cap in some form. That either means the middle class is going to lose its guaranteed contracts and cushy salaries, or the superstars are going to be allowed less money. Somebody on the player’s side is walking away a loser.
Maybe it is an ominous sign and look into the player’s strategy that they brought in NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith in to talk to the executive committee and the players this week. Smith will surely go over with them what his union gained from decertification — something player agents continue to push vehemently for.
Until Fisher and the players can solve how to approach both protecting the value of the NBPA’s middle class and instituting a hard cap, this lockout may continue to drag on.
