Calling Foul on N.B.A.’s Claims of Financial Distress

Yet another article on the labor situation and the owner's claims of major losses and unsustainability. Seems like an attempted honest appraisal (though without the books being made available by teams, we're left to extrapolate from incomplete data). This seems about right to me, and that "fairness" can largely be achieved with a reduction in the player percentage to between 50 and 55% and a more equitable revenue sharing arrangement between teams (much closer to the player's apparent position than the owner's, as I understand it). But glad for any more economically minded folks to correct me if I'm mis-representing things based on some fallacious facts or logic.

11 months ago ikiru36 9 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Basically, it seems like the owners are wanting to make large profits out of an entertainment venture, which is stupid.

And completely predictable. They don’t seem to have much of a leg to stand on, since player salaries are right in line with every other major sport and whatever fiscal irresponsibility there is in the NBA lies squarely on the owners’ shoulders.

by Spider Jerusalem on Jul 5, 2011 11:52 AM PDT reply actions

the only way they feel like they are losing money would be to sign stupid contracts

and collect stupid contracts. thats how they feel like they are losing money because they cant really do anything about it unless trade or waive. Its not the players fault, its the FO. so yeah

curry & iggy TEAM USA buddies.

by bimmercirem3 on Jul 5, 2011 12:38 PM PDT reply actions

Reality

Owners sign “stupid” contracts because they are over a barrel and the cost of not signing the player to a stupid contract is usually greater (loss of fanbase, loss of credibility, etc.). SJax is the exception to prove the rule.

Also, looking at attendance around the league, it’s clear some teams aren’t drawing well at all (See Philly/Detroit/etc…) — in fact 1/3 of the league is drawing less than 82% capacity.

Frankly, the NBA is in desperate need off ATTRITION. Several teams need to go bye-bye.

Get rid of:

T’Wolves
Kings
Hornets
Hawks
Bobcats
Grizzlies

24 teams would be a stronger league/better competition.

by joegiant on Jul 5, 2011 2:04 PM PDT reply actions

hmmmmm

That’s 4 Western Conference teams and 2 Eastern Conference teams. I say we keep Memphis- they’re fans seem to actually give a crap. I say we contract… wait for it… wait for it… the Miami Heat!

That’s right. When you have 2 of the best players in the world and are in the Finals and your fans still don’t care enough to show up and make some noise, you don’t deserve a team.

As a side note, I wish there was a way the NBA could adopt soccer’s system, where the worst team from each conference would get kicked out of the league for the next year. How about this- we get rid of those 6 teams and send the players left without a team to the D-league, only the D-league can acutally be competitive now with decent players and decent player salaries. Each year, the top 2 D-league teams get promoted to the NBA, while the 2 worst NBA teams get sent down to the D-league. The same rules then apply the following year, with teams that were sent down being eligible to be promoted back to the NBA. It would never work, but one can dream.

by ERock386 on Jul 5, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

hat’s right. When you have 2 of the best players in the world and are in the Finals and your fans still don’t care enough to show up and make some noise, you don’t deserve a team

They’re still not as bad as Laker fans…

Wanna feel real torture? Try being a Warrior fan.

by luvmydubz23 on Jul 5, 2011 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions

1/3 of the league is drawing less than 82% capacity.

Just standing alone, this fact doesnt seem all that alarming. How does this compare to other sporting leagues? Just off the top of my head, 82% of capacity would still seem like a pretty full stadium, and the fact that 67% of the teams draw more than this number (82%), makes me feel ok about the success of the league, if these are the down years. Again, it’s hard to know without know the numbers though.

by WestCoastWarrior on Jul 5, 2011 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions

i just wish teachers made what athletes make..

but ya, i guess the future of our nation isnt as exciting..
greed sucks

by PIRATEWARRIOR on Jul 5, 2011 2:05 PM PDT reply actions

....

The solution that baseball has since adopted — greater revenue sharing in lieu of a salary cap — could also be a natural one for the N.B.A.: the profits made by the Knicks, Bulls and Lakers alone would be enough to cover the losses of all 17 unprofitable teams. (Players might have some reason to object to revenue sharing — some versions of it are the economic equivalent of a tax on player salaries — but they would probably prefer it to the more draconian measures that the league will try to impose.)

so the league should be knicks,bulls and lakers league. sounds like something I would wana watch.

"who wants to do some heroin? I only have one needle so we will need to share. Daniel Tosh of Tosh.0"

by chupamelapolla on Jul 5, 2011 10:08 PM PDT reply actions

The league has put up a response to this article on nba.com.

As usual, their claim is that everything is false/inaccurate (very inaccurate to say the least) in this article. Could Forbes be publishing misleading data? Or is the league full of s**t? They claim that many teams have been losing money since the start of the last CBA yet they renewed the deal in 2005. What does the NBA have to lose by making their financial records public if the records support their reasons for their proposed CBA? One thing is for certain, trust is hard to come by these days.

Serving it up night in and night out -Steph "The Chef" Curry

by dont_stop_believin' on Jul 6, 2011 12:43 AM PDT reply actions