Cleveland Radio Station Edits “LeBron” in Jay-Z’s “Empire State of Mind”
December 14, 201012 Days of a Cleveland Christmas- Day 6
December 14, 2010
Last night, Jon and I engaged in a conversation about the battle between owners and players. I started it because of the recent news that NBA players will attempt to “decertify” their union in a power play with the NBA. It is a bit long, but here are the results of the conversation.
Jon: I understand the antipathy and derision toward professional athletes, I really do. They’re paid an exorbitant amount of money (at least those in the three major sports) to do something that most people do only in their spare time for fun. And on top of the money, athletes get fame, women, and reservations at good restaurants. I should start by acknowledging that nothing they do should earn them the status they are afforded in our culture.
But on the other hand, if a sport generates a certain amount of money/ fame/ women/ restaurant-reservations, who should be the primary beneficiary? There are really only two answers, right? Either the players or the owners? And the reason I can’t support owners keeping a majority of the money has as much to do with politics as it does sports, I suppose: the players generate the majority of the money, not the owners. The business only works with good players, as both the Cavs and Indians have demonstrated in recent years.
There is, of course, a third option. Removing the disgusting amount of money associated with professional sports. But to take the money out of sports, we’d have to take the sports out of our lives. In other words, fans feed the beast, so it’s hard for me to get too riled up about the money-problems without looking at myself in the mirror and remembering that I’m complicit in the system that continues to manufacture ill-deserved millionaires.
So I guess I side, albeit with quite a few reservations, with the players. What about you?
Craig: I have to side with the owners. They are the bosses. They are the ones with the largest financial stake. They should get to have the largest hand in determining the success or failure of their business (or side business as the case may be.) The NBA specifically has jumped off a bridge of sorts where the owners’ willingness and abilities are becoming less important as a differentiator of franchise quality. This is obviously tainted by me being a Cleveland fan, but hear me out.
Dan Gilbert purchased the Cavaliers for $375 million. He was able to afford that because he made his other business wildly successful. Then on top of it, he went above and beyond the salary caps in order to try and win no matter the costs. Obviously it backfired and LeBron left. That in and of itself isn’t the problem, necessarily. Free agency is necessary. But it was a leading indicator that the league is in need of a serious shakeup.
Players are feeling entitled to their contract dollars. They have no respect for the franchise owners or the customers who make it all possible. The controls that are in place to make the league competitive and compelling are quite obviously failing if players like Carmelo Anthony and maybe Chris Paul can dictate where they are traded based on the fact that they won’t be hurt financially at all. The way things are going, the players have near one-sided contracts which require no consideration on their part when they request changes in terms.
I know these players aren’t slaves or indentured servants. Please spare me the wrath of Reverend Al. Free agency is important. LeBron was free to make his choice. At the same time, when the system is so far out of whack that the franchise owners, who have far more committed financially than players, and the fans who make it all possible, are secondary factors in player movement and team quality then the sport is teetering in my opinion.
When a business fails its franchise owners and customers consistently, it goes under. It isn’t all the players’ fault, but their actions and manipulation of the game are the clearest indicator of problems league-wide. Even though they are far wealthier and more powerful than the players, doesn’t it feel like the franchise owners have been placed in a caste below the players?
Jon: Not surprisingly, I disagree.
You write: “It’s not all the players’ fault…” But of course it is! All of this is the players’ fault.
Players want: (1) money; (2) control; and (3) fame. That’s what they’ve used the union to achieve. I’m not defending the morality of that desire; I’m just suggesting that owners want the same things. And if I’m forced to give those things to one of them, it’s going to be the players. At least they give me a reason to watch. There has never been a time in my life that I’ve wanted to watch Dan Gilbert do something on TV–except maybe compose a drunken letter in Comic Sans. But Grady Sizemore? Sure, I’ve paid to watch him.
This may or may not be an interesting off-shoot, but I think we’ve touched on why I’m fundamentally opposed to salary caps. Obviously, as a fan of various “small market teams” (i.e. “Cleveland teams), a salary cap can help my teams “compete”. On the other hand, salary caps are explicitly designed to funnel money toward owners who don’t have to build a winning team. Randy Lerner has made hundreds of millions of dollars because the NFL underpays its players while owners like him make money off their own incompetence. (Say what you will about the Indians, but nobody’s getting rich on their rebuild. Those are real market forces at work.) So is it surprising that most owners support salary caps? Not at all: it keeps their costs controlled while their revenues grow exponentially. Even the Yankees want a salary cap. That should tell you something.
For me then, it’s less about “what is right?” than “which is worse?” Show me an owner who loses money making an honest investment, and perhaps I’ll change my tune. But when Cleveland fans praise Dan Gilbert for his prodigal spending, they forget that most of his outlays were designed to protect his golden goose. Now that he’s gone, I expect frugality to rule. (I could be wrong, but I bet the team is trying everything within its power to shed expensive contracts this season.)
So as long as there’s such thing as an “unguaranteed contract”–an oxymoron, in my book–and players in every sport are told which city that have to play in (would you take that deal?) while owners continue to line their pockets whether they win or lose, consider me unimpressed with the plight of all these poor billionaires. In the battle of the rich and talented against the rich and incompetent, I’ll choose the talent. At least they generate some value.
And, as Paul Simon would say: ‘You Can Call Me Al’. But I that means I get to call you Betty.
Craig: We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Say what you want about the stupid decisions that Randy Lerner has made as an owner, but he has spared no expense in firing people in the midst of guaranteed contracts in order to try and turn around what is on the field. Also, this is the first I am hearing that the New York Yankees would welcome a salary cap. A floor, yes. A cap? Not so much.
In the end, I expect owners to be competitive with their businesses. The Pittsburgh Pirates are a case in and of themselves. We spend far too much time talking about that club honestly. It is an outlier and an exception as opposed to the rule. Sometimes owners are too clueless to be competitive, but that is only partially their fault. When you buy a McDonald’s or a Subway there is a clear operational method that should at least keep you somewhat on the right path. That is what I am hoping the NBA improves with this next CBA. The players will still be millionaires, but their movement should be more limited and their power reduced a bit. It isn’t like they can’t afford it. This is a league where Brian Scalabrine has career earnings over $17.5 million and Eric Snow made just over $50 million. It is partially the owners’ fault too, but the system allowed it.
At the end of it all, I guess neither one of us is right or wrong. In order for the NBA to be successful it has to be a delicate balance between the owners having some control, the players having some control and the fans as customers feeling like they are receiving a product that is worth paying for. Right now the way this league is going, I think the players’ power and lack of respect is a bit too high compared to the owners. The players, in my mind, as millionaires should be somewhat grateful to the billionaires that bought the franchises and pay their wages.
That doesn’t mean they should be slaves to the owners. I said there had to be a balance. Right now with the outlandish player demands all over the league I think the power balance is off.
You know what? I just thought of something. I think I found the perfect solution. We should just blame player agents and be done with it.
23 Comments
The NBA is on the wrong path. This time next year there may only be two teams on Nationally televised games. The Knicks and the Heat. Maybe the occasional Lakers/ Celtics/ Magic game. There won’t be any good basketball games until the playoffs because ALL of the players will be funneled into two or three teams. The Red Sox and the Yankees. Then the NBA championship will be a failure like the World Series unless the Heat or the Knicks are in it. Because the world doesn’t want to watch the Milwaukee Bucks or the OKC Thunder, they want to watch Wade, James, Stoudimire, Anthony, Kobe and Paul (intentionality omitted Bosh, nobody cares about him but himself and Pat Riley).
Owners. The players have a single talent – the ability to play basketball (dribble, run, jump, etc.). If they don’t like the way their employers are treating them, then they can go to Europe or Asia and find new basketball employers.
I don’t think sports can be completely compared to business because sports teams need other sports teams to survive. A monopoly cannot exist in sports.
Without the Indians, Pirates, Marlins, etc – the Yankees can’t exist. So while salary caps and things limit earning potential and might not necessarily be “fair” – it keeps the sport competitive which keeps fans coming which keeps the players making money.
Dirtbags vs. Slimeballs
Greed vs. Greed
Kind of tough to choose.
Obviously neither side is 100% right, but in the current scheme of the NBA, I have a lot more empathy for owners than I do for players. Owners are dumping millions of dollars in to teams (and not just salary, what about keeping the lights on? Marketing? Insurance?).
Players bring the skills, but without the owners and the league to run the organization, they would be holding skills expos down at the I-X center for maybe a couple hundred a day. Without the organization to make them world wide sales, they’d never sell a single jersey stateside, let alone Europe or China.
Now, with the current state of the NFL, I have slightly more empathy with the players. NFL owners ask their players to sacrifice their body on every single play, but treat the players as absolutely disposable. If you’re injured too badly, you’re cut and your career is possibly over. Better be smart with your money while you’re in the league, too, because they won’t take care of you when you’re out of it.
Salary caps are necessary in professional sporting leagues. If the markets are going to determine things, the leagues might as well be broken-up like the English football league. At least the EPL doesn’t pretend that there is true competition within it.
No such discussion is complete without the greatest athlete quote ever, made during the last NBA labor spat. From the Book of Ewing:
“People say we make a lot of money. But we have a lot of expenses.”
It doesn’t matter because in the end the fans will be the ones getting screwed.
Random thought: instead of direct revenue sharing give the players options to buy something akin to a one year stock. Most will probably pocket the money because that’s what they do. Team players will invest as much as possible and continuing being a team player driving towards the playoffs (where they stand to make more money).
Here’s a good article about the NBA warning players to start saving money for the lockout:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630903919408266.html
KEY QUOTE:
When asked how the union is encouraging younger players to save money, J.J. Hickson, a 22-year-old first-round pick of the Cleveland Cavaliers, said: “I don’t know anything about that saving stuff.”
I don’t think sports can be completely compared to business because sports teams need other sports teams to survive. A monopoly cannot exist in sports.
This.
I remember an argument a while back (I think it was George Will on the baseball Blue Ribbon panel back in the 90s) that still makes the most sense – 50% revenue sharing (with a high hard floor and a hard cap). It’s based on a simple premise – you need two teams to play a game, and sports always make more money with more teams that are competitive. As such, in any given game, teams split the revenue. So every team keeps 50% of what they make outright, and then the other 50% goes into a pool split evenly between the teams. Then make the floor the revenue sharing amount + the average of the previous year’s payroll of the bottom half of the teams in the league. Owners then can’t just pocket the revenue sharing, and the exact same amount of money is available for player salaries league-wide (probably more if you accept more competitive teams = more revenue league-wide). Since the same salary money is available, the owners then call the players “marketing” bluff – if they think they’re going to make more marketing money in a larger market, they’re free to take it at a lower salary on that team. And if they want to team up with their friends and make a super team, they’re free to do that at lower salaries as well (structure the cap to limit the amount of max contracts available).
Basically everybody involved sacrifices some control, but at the end of the day, the potential payoff is massive.
I’m surprised to see no mention of Cliff’s deal on this site or in any of the comments.
Personally, I’m happy anytime anyone tells the Yankees and their money to shove it, however it make me think that had the Indians never given Cliff the opportunity to experience Philly, and had money still not been the biggest issue, the Indians actually might have had a chance to re-sign him……..doubtful though, seeing as how Philly is still shelling out over 100 mil
I am a Cleveland fan who is used to getting stepped on. So, of course, I side with the fans 🙂
On the actual post above though:
Jon, you state that the players/talent are what generates the $$$. While that is true to some extent, the owners providing the stage to display the talent is a huge generator of that $$$ as well. Without owners setting up arenas, television deals, online packages, uniforms, trainers, practice facilities, and the league itself, the players would be stuck playing at the YMCA during their lunch breaks like the rest of us (except we would hate them for being so good because we wouldn’t get as much floor time).
Also, the owners have a vested interest in listening to the fans(the good ones anyway). The players piece of the pie is generally predetermined (short-term). So, if the owners can listen to the fans to figure out how to generate more $$$, then they can increase their revenue that they keep.
Finally, owners are in the sport for the long-term and the good ones try to make decisions with the long term health of the league in mind. Players generally have a very short career and time in the league (outside those that stay in after playing). They have much shorter-term thoughts on what is needed in the CBA and it can drive their decision making. Fans are also in it for the long haul, which tends to sway me more towards the owner side (we are owners of our fanhood as it were).
Now, the owners obviously don’t have the same set of priorities as the fans, so I disagree often with what they want/do. But, they are much closer in mindset than the players (IMO of course).
I’m with the owners (and ClemJax above).
Let’s remember what they are: OWNERS. They own the teams, and should have the right to do as they see fit, for the most part. In the NBA, 30 owners pool their various resources together to run a competitive league, and as such, they come up with certain guidelines to keep things competitive – a salary cap, revenue sharing, etc.
The players are merely the ones who provide the entertainment. Yes, some are outstanding, and if they’d *all* turn down the money and hold out for more *maybe* they’d get somewhere… but in reality, within 1-2 years the league could be full of a new generation (or players that come to their senses) that says “I’d rather make $10M over 4 years than flip burgers.”
Obviously, any revenue sharing should be required to be spent, plus X amount, but that’s more between the owners than the players. The players are employees and are being offered money for their services. If they want to hold out for more money – good luck. If the league wants to set maximums and caps, etc. to keep their league competitive, that’s completely within their rights and they should do so.
Jon hit on the key (IMHO) in his ‘3rd option’: remove (or at least decrease) the disgusting amount of money that’s flowing to players and owners.
The owners are (mostly) unified. They players have agents and a union. But the millions of fans who fund the whole enterprise have no representation in the negotiating process. I think fans need to be better organized and throw their weight into the negotiating ring.
I realize it’s a free market and the owners can charge what they want for a PSL, a game ticket, a beer, or a jersey… as long as people keep coming to games and shopping at the team store. But the reality is that the live sports experience is out of reach for the average fan.
Professional sports is now just another reality TV show for most people. We tune in each new season to see which actors returned from last season and what new drama they’ve got in store for us.
The ONLY thing that keeps me tuned in is an intense desire for the city of Cleveland to finally win a championship and earn some respect for the city and its fans. Once that happens… I’m out.
$5 million maximum player salary in the NBA, $12 million team salary cap + incentives for WINNING. This will allow each team to sign an elite guy for the 5 mil and spend 7 surrounding him with talent. It will also give them motivation to play every game hard with money on the line each game.
If $5 million or the hundreds of thousands for role players are not enough for the players, then they can take their talents and 1 year of college “education” and I wish them the best of luck even finding employment.
Obviously with team salaries going from almost $100 million or more in some cases down to $12 million, ticket prices can be reduced dramatically and the owners can still walk away with more. The players can still have their fame and women, and also still be among the highest wage earners in this country. But no, they will fight for the rights of Eric Snow to earn $50 million in a 10 or so year very average career. How long will it take each of you to earn $50 million?
Lock it up and throw away the key! It’s long over due that a work stoppage hit the NBA. Let them all get a taste of reality.
@Shamrock – long overdue? ’98/99 wasn’t that long ago was it?
in comparison:
MLB hasn’t had a work stoppage since they killed the first good Indians season of my life in ’94.
NFL hasn’t had a work stoppage since the replacement players in ’87.
“Owners. The players have a single talent – the ability to play basketball (dribble, run, jump, etc.). If they don’t like the way their employers are treating them, then they can go to Europe or Asia and find new basketball employers.”
Most intelligent thing said in both the comments and the article. The argument for the players seems to think management is irrelevant. How much do you want to bet the league would be successful if run entirely by players (either current or former)? The Bobcats are sure doing well with Jordan. Supply and Demand works not only in a “product” sense, but also in an employee sense. Once players begin to value themselves above what the owners do, then it comes down to who can sacrifice more. Can Lebron sacrifice millions (and for other basketball players probably their endorsements) and the ability to have a legacy of championships? Trust me, there are some players who would take a paycut and be a scab. And we would still pay.
owners – the risk is all theirs.
player stinks it up and he still gets paid. players is an all-star and he wants a raise. owners always pay. but owners are the ones who write the checks and bankroll the club. they DESERVE to be making the lion’s share.
I’m in the boat that both are in the wrong. 🙂
As a fan who has dealt with owners moving teams, I am for fan-ownership of clubs. Some of the most effective have been fan-owned in the world. Real Madrid, Barcelona and even Green Bay Packers all are fan owned. With so much hub-bub about who’s in the right, I would prefer dialogue about fans taking a stake into their teams since they already foot the bill.
I hate what the NBA has become so whatever ‘fixes’ the problem is fine with me. I don’t know the details enough (nor care to research) how it all works, I just know it’s broken when 3 players can get together and force sign and trades to 1 team so they can play with their buddies.
The NBA, along with MLB, is broken. Until it’s fixed, you have to get lucky in the draft (see lbj or Durant) or small market teams are S.O.L.
@18 What talent do the owners have? The real reason Dan Gilbert acted like fool is because his cash cow took his talents to south beach. Owners don’t produce or create.The players do. That’s why the Cavs can barely get on Televison. Lebron created that, not Dan Gilbert. The only reason anyone mentions the Cavs is to point out how Lebron fired the club. Evidently Jordan is doing a better job with his bobcats than Gilbert is doing with his Cavs.Check their records. And if the owners don’t like the way the employees are treating them they can go to Europe and get their players.
If free agency didn’t prove that management is irrelevant,then I can’t imagine what example you need. .
@22 “The real reason Dan Gilbert acted like fool is because his cash cow took his talents to south beach. Owners don’t produce or create.The players do. That’s why the Cavs can barely get on Televison. Lebron created that, not Dan Gilbert.”
To the above quote: we’re arguing about who has more power. the above statement indicates that you feel since the players create, then they should have the power. What you don’t realize is this isn’t a relationship between the fans and the owners or the fans and the players. Simply put, the players want to play in America, where the game gets the most attention and they make the most money. If the owners decide they would rather pay less even with inferior players, there is little the players can do. The players have much less risk than the owners currently. Players get massive contracts with guaranteed money that they will get regardless of how they perform. Owner’s only make money if the players perform well. In some cases, that isn’t happening. Owner’s might not create but they inherently have all the risk (and thus should reap higher rewards…if you know anything about stocks you know this is a basic economic fact)
“The only reason anyone mentions the Cavs is to point out how Lebron fired the club.”
Players, no matter how successful…should not be the ones running the league. The type of AAU revisioning that is going on in the NBA (the Miami Heat/ potential New York Knicks) undermines parity and fair competition. The owners need to have better control of players…period.
“Evidently Jordan is doing a better job with his bobcats than Gilbert is doing with his Cavs.Check their records. And if the owners don’t like the way the employees are treating them they can go to Europe and get their players.”
This statement doesn’t really hold its weight. If you average both teams win totals since both owners took control, I think you would find Gibson to be one of the more successful. You can only really look at owner success over a long period of time (unless there is a trend of decreasing results). And you’re right, they can go to Europe and get players, which is what they will do. The real people that are going to get hurt here is the stars. The owners are trying to reign them in so that we don’t have a league of 4 superteams. that works in European futbal, but not in America.
Any more questions?