Team Thread: Oklahoma City Thunder

#7,901
#7,901
volsarelife1 said:
How about when Harrison Barnes basically got traded mid game? Is it all right for teams to trade a player while they still have years remaining on their contract. The team didn't honor their side. (Yes I'm taking the extreme on this).
Click to expand...

Kerr's point was a contracted player basically sitting until he gets his way out of a small market. I agree that growth of that phenomenon would not help the league at all. It makes an imperfect system more imperfect and further tilts the balance in the league. But, yes, teams typically act in their best interests first and it isn't always fair to the player.
 
#7,907
#7,907
n_huffhines said:
I rustled some jimmies a couple years back over in the politics forum when I suggested American sports are socialist and European sports are capitalist. Last place? Let's reward you with a high draft pick. Can't fill your stadium? Here's some revenue-sharing. If you're last in the EPL, you get demoted to the minor leagues.

It's not necessarily better in Europe, and it's not really possible for us to do everything that they do, but it does put things in perspective.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there’s a clear answer, at least from just a moral perspective. I have less problems with the salary cap than drafting. It’s incredible you can draft someone’s services and they own your abilities and you can’t choose. I find that ridiculous.
 
#7,908
#7,908
zjcvols said:
I don’t think there’s a clear answer, at least from just a moral perspective. I have less problems with the salary cap than drafting. It’s incredible you can draft someone’s services and they own your abilities and you can’t choose. I find that ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I see both sides of it. It's one company and the company is telling you that you have a job if you work in, say, New Orleans, and you don't have a job otherwise. At the same time, someone might contend that the NBA is a monopoly and the government should step in. I don't think that, but you could make an anti-trust case.

It is interesting that in most industries the bosses do not want collective bargaining, they want a completely free market for labor, but in pro sports the bosses do want collective bargaining. Maybe not so much anymore, but at his peak, Lebron should have probably been making $200M+ per season. I'm basing this off the CFO of UFC saying there is no way Lebron isn't responsible for at least 10% of league revenue, which would be $750M. I don't think Cleveland could have paid him $200M, but Knicks probably could have. Nobody is going to feel bad for Lebron, obviously, but it doesn't make it right that he's earning a small fraction of what he'd make in an open market. The idea that 10 players will make more than Kawhi this year is ludicrous. One of them has never made an all-star game.
 
#7,909
#7,909
n_huffhines said:
I see both sides of it. It's one company and the company is telling you that you have a job if you work in, say, New Orleans, and you don't have a job otherwise. At the same time, someone might contend that the NBA is a monopoly and the government should step in. I don't think that, but you could make an anti-trust case.

It is interesting that in most industries the bosses do not want collective bargaining, they want a completely free market for labor, but in pro sports the bosses do want collective bargaining. Maybe not so much anymore, but at his peak, Lebron should have probably been making $200M+ per season. I'm basing this off the CFO of UFC saying there is no way Lebron isn't responsible for at least 10% of league revenue, which would be $750M. I don't think Cleveland could have paid him $200M, but Knicks probably could have. Nobody is going to feel bad for Lebron, obviously, but it doesn't make it right that he's earning a small fraction of what he'd make in an open market.
Click to expand...

The collective bargaining keeps them out of the anti-trust stuff as I understand it. It is seen as a benefit to the league.
 
#7,910
#7,910
95 Vol Alum said:
The collective bargaining keeps them out of the anti-trust stuff as I understand it. It is seen as a benefit to the league.
Click to expand...

The anti-trust exemption for sports leagues was established in 1922, with Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League SCOTUS ruling, which predates the MLBPA and Curt Flood by 4 decades. Maybe the existence of CBA's prevents anybody from challenging the precedent, but the point still remains, it's good for the NBA owners because it puts a cap on cost.
 
#7,911
#7,911
n_huffhines said:
The anti-trust exemption for sports leagues was established in 1922, with Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League SCOTUS ruling, which predates the MLBPA and Curt Flood by 4 decades. Maybe the existence of CBA's prevents anybody from challenging the precedent, but the point still remains, it's good for the NBA owners because it puts a cap on cost.
Click to expand...

Technically, I think the 1922 ruling only applies to MLB. I'm not labor law expert, but this article does a fair job of explaining how the collective bargaining could be abandoned by the players and an anti-trust suit then filed by them. Instead they typically choose to collectively bargain such that the anti-trust suit cannot be filed (or that's how I understand it). Basically, the anti-trust filing would be a nuclear option if a CBA cannot be established.

Antitrust law looms over sports contracts analysis
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top