This seems to be the owners position in these CBA talks.
Thursday night, after the third consecutive day of bargaining talks under the watchful eye of Federal mediator George Cohen, the sessions ended without a deal in place to bring the NBA back. The rhetoric was strong from both sides as the owners (represented by Adam Silver and Spurs owner Peter Holt) and the players (repped by Hunter and Fisher) both claimed the moral high ground in the talks while simultaneously slinging mud at the other side. It was a sight to see as the post meeting pressers played on a loop on my TV screen last night.
Accusations were slung forcefully but with calm voices. Both sides made claims about what the other side said all while framing their own position as the one worthy of our support. Both sides mentioned the fans but neither side (especially the owners – as I’ll get to in a second) made a move in good faith that could actually reward the paying patrons with the thing they desire most: games to watch in the coming month with an agreement to bring back the league.
Beyond the rhetoric though, the main take away was that the owners are not willing to budge off wanting a much more favorable split on the BRI and a new “system” in which the league operates. Adam Silver firmly expressed the belief that the owners are unwilling to move off these demands and essentially calls them a necessity to have in place before the NBA resumes. He explained and supproted this position by stating it is the only way to ensure that owners have the opportunity to make a profit (the BRI split) and have a more competitive league where every team has the opportunity to compete (the more favorable system).
Silver further expressed that the players were willing to “trade” on the issues where they’d concede percentage points on the BRI in further givebacks to the owners but would want to discuss a more favorable system in place to account for that concession. That the players wanted to see if they could come to an agreement on some of the major system issues first, getting some of the things that they want in a system that would make give backs on the BRI more palatable.
This proposal was rebuffed, however.
As Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher stated in their press conference and the great Ken Berger of CBS later reported, the owners drew a line in the sand. They want 50% of the BRI (the equivalent of approximately $280 million dollars in “give backs” in the first year with that dollar amount only growing as revenue grows – as it is expected to do) and they want the players to agree to that upfront before any further system issues are tackled. And then when it’s time to tackle those issues, they’re going to want the types of structural changes that they’ve been pursuing all along.
(As an aside, Silver and Holt also argued that the BRI split and the system changes they want aren’t connected at all. They say that one speaks to profitability and the other speaks to competitive balance. I don’t see this argument at all. The owners want a more restictive system that limits spending. They want a hard-ish salary cap – either through a punitive luxury tax or a straight forward NFL style cap. But any system that limits spending or caps it at a certain level then creates the ceiling in which expenses are maxed out. That ceiling then becomes the line that revenue needs to exceed in order to become profit. So, how can the owners say that the two aren’t linked when both are connected to profitability for the owners? Try as they might to frame the hard cap as a way to achieve competitive balance, I instead see another money grab by the owners. Why it’s not being framed this way is beyond me.)
So, here we are. The owners want their cake and they want to eat it to. They don’t want a compromise. They want a win on every issue that’s being discussed. Not only that, they want a blowout win. The type where the home team fans leave early because the rout is so large. Well, guess what gentleman, the fans are leaving early. They’re disgusted with how these negotations are playing out.