Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Brian: Hate the Player, not the Game

All signs are pointing to an NBA lockout for next season.

It's all about players rights versus owners rights. And of course, by rights I mean money.

As fans we are supposed to connect with the players because they seem more personal than the guys in suits who we don't enjoy watching. We love watching the players play the game, and could really care less who is cutting their paychecks and running the team. Because of this, we, as fans, are expected to side with the players.

But I am choosing to side with the owners on this one.

The price of contracts has gotten out of hand in recent years. The Atlanta Hawks are a prime example. Their franchise player, the face of their franchise, was a free agent. The Hawks would have upset a lot of fans if they had let him walk. So they had to re-sign him, right? The problem? Joe Johnson wanted a max contract - aka 6 years, $123 million. That is more than LeBron could have made! And this is for a player who averaged 21 points and 5 assists and crumbled in the playoffs. And he is worth $20 million a year?

You can sit there and say "Well then the owner shouldn't have paid him!" But guess what? If they hadn't, someone else would have. Your response could then be "Well then no one should have paid him!" But the reality is that someone has to pay him, because he is one of the better players in the league and wouldn't have taken anything less. Plus, if all of the owners collectively agreed to not pay him because it was too much, that would have been illegal according to the current collective bargaining agreement. Basically, no matter what, he was getting that contract.

This highlights the fact that there needs to be a limit when it comes to paying these players. The amount of maximum contracts needs to be less than it currently is. Sorry to break it to you, but a person can live on a max of $10 million a year instead of the current $20 million.

Also, I would support a hard cap (where a team cannot go over, say, $57 million a year no matter what) as opposed to its current soft cap (where a team can spend as much as they want but if they go over $57 million, they have to pay a luxury tax which is double for every dollar over. So if a team went over by $10 million, they would have to also pay a $10 million tax). This current system still puts teams ahead that can afford to pay the luxury tax (cough*Lakers*cough) because they live in a bigger market as opposed to a smaller market team like Charlotte.

This would lead to a more competitive league, which is always better for fans. How many times has your team had to trade or cut players because they needed to save money? Well lower contracts and a hard cap would allow for more teams to be competitive. Everyone wins!

I'm not saying I want the owners to put the players at a serious disadvantage financially, but I would support a lock out if the players refused to budge with their salaries.

Like Ghandi always said - Hate the player, not the game.

7 comments:

  1. I really enjoy this post because I do think the salaries of players are getting out of hand. Sports used to be all about the love of the game not the fame and scandals. It is rare now to find an athlete so passionate about that game that does not care about the money and popularity he is gaining. Athletes need to go back to Sports Illustrated pages not the head lines of People magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gosh, NBA players are a bunch of stinking divas. If the league could come to some sort of universal consensus and lowering the salary cap, all teams would better off, and maybe the players wouldn't act like fags when they don't get exactly what they want out of their contracts. I think Lebron's actions and his "prime time special" speak volumes to the attitude of the entire league. And if players don't make the money they want then they can whore themselves to advertisers and product endorsements to make up the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The players should be paid whatever the league can afford to pay them. Everyone complains about these athletes making ridiculous amounts of money, but the fact is they generate so much money because the sport industry is at a place its never been. Why shouldn't the players get more of a piece of the cash THEY are putting in the owners pocket

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that players should be getting the profit that they earn the league and their respective teams. Problem is that they are taking TOO much of that profit. Hence why teams are forced to shred salaries year in and year out. That isn't fair to the fans of smaller market teams, because they can draft an awesome player, and then watch them leave because either they can't afford to extend their contracts or don't have the money to build a team around this certain player. That isn't fair to fans and it isn't fair to the owners. I think the players can take a slight pay cut to better the game for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a business. Stop making excuses.for smaller.market teams..figure out creative ways to attract fans to your product. Your beloved boise state for.example..huge market they are in right. They have success bc their program is run well. It is up to the individual franchise to.generate good profits. You should.feel bad for the players that have.to play in crappy ran organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the players should be paid more money than they already are being paid. Lets be honest, professional atheletes may be the only people fueling our economy right now. Put a salary cap on the Wall Street execs, but let these men spend!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oregon jumped Boise!

    the team that lost to THE Ohio State University in the rose bowl earlier this year has jumped the overrated broncos. why?

    Boise State < Good

    ReplyDelete