Sorry but I don't get public sentiment. Why should I side with the owners? How is this any different from the Occupy movement? People are upset with government bailing out businesses, but it's OK for NBA owners to demand that players make up for their losses? How about if they try and think for once before giving out bad contracts to players who don't deserve them? I'm fairly sure if owners win on the BRI issue, that money is going straight to owners' pockets not to reducing ticket prices. The public hates the players because they're millionaires, but not the owners who happen to be billionaires because they take a risk in owning a professional sports team. That's such a laugh. These owners have the biggest fucking egos around, why do you suppose they take that risk? Believe me, it's not just for profit. They'll willingly chance losing money if need be. But they'll stick it up the players or fans' collective asses if given the opportunity, without hesitation.
um...seems very hard to even force an attempt to understand your mind's logical path. I will make an attempt to directly explain the issue further down, but first some thoughtsâ€¦. Wall street isn't even a public outcry. It is a small, extremely small group of angry people shooting at what they perceive as causes for their issues. And wrong as they may be, it still doesnâ€™t come close to THIS battle. Owners have ownership...players do not. Animals in zoos attract customers, but do not command ticket gross. Actors in plays and movies all are attractions and reasons the public buys tickets, yet do not get an official union contracted percentage of sales. Owners agreed to an earlier union agreement and they see that within their own group an attempt to play it to advantages at the harm of the entire league. So they want to change it. And they this time have a majority of owners onboard. It is completely different. Owners are not asking for players to make up for losses. They are going to make an attempt at future losses being controlled. They are trying to come to the aid of the entire league, large and small teams. They saw successful manipulations of the old agreement by both large market teams AND big time players along with agents. They saw this as a direct hit at the health of the entire league, mostly the health of small markets. UNLIKE the players...the owners MUST act for the health of the entire NBA. They needed to address this new found loophole madness. Here is the funny part, however. Players are not really acting in the way a union should. Most unions work to make the membership larger. In this case, the player's union is working to make sure its most powerful and popular layers have their cake while not worrying if the league compresses to smaller numbers...this resulting in the loss of jobs and membership. How many tweets have you read by players telling owners of small markets IF they cannot make money, sell the team? How many people want to buy a team with a losing number in a small market in a league that promotes large market teams? Noâ€¦the team will eventually be cut from the herd and the NBA gets smaller. Many suggestions for a smaller NBA have been floated. You got any money and want to buy one????? Really a strange goal, if you ask me.
It sounds like what you're saying is it's OK to suppress worker satisfaction and that cutting pay or health costs is not an issue if it saves your business. I'm not a small business owner, but I think there are ways you can restructure your business and yes that includes perhaps reducing your workforce, and still stay competitive and attract and keep good personnel. For most people, they look for better job conditions and better pay. Isn't that what a free market is all about? Jobs are created because there is a product that needs be made or a service that needs to be done. In the NBA's case, you could say the owners have created the greatest stage possible for the players to show off their talents. I'd argue however is if you try to cut pay and restrict movement, when there are other owners out there who are willing to pay more, it just doesn't seem right. I do think the owners will win the court battle just as they've won public support. I don't want to see small market fans get lost in the shuffle either. There's something special about New Orleans and it's been fantastic how much the fans have supported the team. It seems idealism has created a dichotomy, I guess we can just hope that what's best for the league also benefits the players and fans.
even auto labor agreements today have sections forcing manufacturers NOT to cut jobs. No, rather they agree that plants be opened and MORE jobs be saved or guaranteed for years to come. Not so here. Nowhere in any NBA contract is there such a thing. Nothing about saving New Orleans or Memphis or OHK! That is because THIS union does NOT care about jobs. It is being controlled by Lawyers (agents) and they care little about the NBA or its player numbers.