NBA CBA Arithmetic

I’m really surprised that the mainstream media is saying that the players should accept the owners’ last offer.

The owners really stuck it to the players on the CBA negotiations.  It is pretty severe trolling, to present the CBA offer as anything other than a total win for the owners.

The players lowered their share of income from 57% to 50%.  That’s a cut of more than 12%.  That’s a really harsh cut.  Plus, the owners got increased restrictions, preventing teams from spending more than the cap.  Also, 50% isn’t actually 50%.  The owners get to take some deductions.

Assuming a 10 year deal, here’s how the arithmetic plays out.  The players are giving up 12% of salary per year for 10 years *OR* they can give up 100% of this year’s salary by refusing the offer.

It actually is a close decision.  Do you give up 12% of your salary per year for 10 years, or give up 100% of this years’ salary?  Given the hard 12% cut, it might be rational to vote against the new CBA.

The owners made a mistake, by sticking it to the players’ union too hard.  Once they got the cap number down from 57% to 50%, they should have conceded most of the rest of the stuff, just to close the deal.  I really was surprised that the owners didn’t compromise at 51% or 52%.  They got the players all the way down to 50%.

The owners also made a mistake, by cracking down on the mid-level exemption.  The mid-level cap exemption is important.  That gives the average union member an incentive to vote for a deal that cheats superstar players.  I don’t know why they owners were so eager to reduce the mid-level cap exemption, because that’s a key component of “divide and conquer” negotiating tactics.

Also, the union leadership has to lie and pretend that it’s a great deal, to try and convince the members to vote for it.  Is the union leader really going to risk his job, to get his workers an extra 1% or 2%?  No.  The union leader is a State middleman.  His #1 priority is to preserve is job, which comes ahead of the workers he allegedly represents.

If the deal is rejected by the players, it will likely lead to a decertification vote and the union head will lose his job.  He has a huge incentive, to try and convince players to vote for a lousy deal.

I’m rooting for the players to vote against the CBA.  The owners completely crushed them.

The mainstream media is presenting this as a reasonable CBA offer.  It isn’t.  It’s a total victory for the owners.  I shouldn’t be surprised, that the mainstream media sides with management over workers.

2 Responses to NBA CBA Arithmetic

  1. The players have all the power. The fans go to and tune into the games to see the players, not the owners. Players (and former players) have enough money to start their own league. Of course, the State (and it’s stupid “laws”) is no doubt preventing this from happening.

  2. Really Cowardly Anonymous November 13, 2011 at 5:43 pm

    Would that were true, dionysusal. However, modern sport seems to me to be very much like the old Roman gladiatorial games. Slaves competed as a spectacle for the masses, and while the best did quite well for themselves and were the superstars of their day (it is mostly a myth that defeated gladiators were killed), the real money was always made by the slave-owners who provided the fighters. Even with football (by which I mean soccer) players’ wages are frequently cited as ridiculous but the owners of the big teams probably make at least as much back all the time. And a lot of them don’t do very much other than forking over an investment now and then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>