A lockout primer
Everything you need to know about the NBA's labor tiff
Posted: Tuesday November 10, 1998 11:28 AM
| |
The Larry Bird rule was created for the famous forward in order for the Celtics to keep him on the team indefinitely Scott Cunnigham/Allsport |
By John Donovan, CNN/SI
ATLANTA (CNN/SI) -- Nothing ever is simple when it comes to labor problems
and sports.
You have your greedy owners and you have your greedy players, all of them
fighting over absurd amounts of money. And, in the end, it's the fans who
get screwed.
Well, maybe it is that simple.
The NBA and its players union, the National Basketball Players
Association, are in the midst of the stalemate of labor stalemates. In
March, the owners voted to re-open talks on the collective bargaining
agreement because they felt, simply, that they are paying too much money to
players and that too many clubs are losing money.
The players say the league is in a period of unprecedented growth and
wealth, and any financial problems the owners face are of their own doing.
There are other issues, of course. But, as is always the case, money is
Numero Uno. In a nutshell, the league and union are bickering over how to
divide about $2 billion in annual revenues. The players received about 57
percent last season and now want 60 percent. The league is offering a 50-50
split.
Fans, of course, are left out in the cold. In a recent CNNSI.com instant
poll, 56 percent of the more than 21,000 respondents blame the current
lockout on the players. Some 23 percent blamed the owners, while sports
agents take the other 20 percent of the fans' wrath.
This is the first time the NBA has lost regular-season games due to a work
stoppage. The earliest the season can start now is mid-December or so. And
that's pushing it.
There's a lot to be ironed out before then. Here's a look at some of the
major issues: | Salary cap
| | Owners' side
| Players' side |
| The NBA already has some peculiar semblance
of a salary cap. But owners are pushing for a "hard" cap similar to the one
used by the NFL.
The NBA's current salary cap is not much of a cap at all. There's a rule
called the "Larry Bird exception" which allows teams to ignore the cap and
re-sign a veteran player at any price. It also allows teams to renegotiate
with a first-round draft choice who has completed two years of his initial
three-year contract.
The salary cap for the 1997-98 season was $26.9 million per team. But the
Chicago Bulls, thanks
to the Bird exception, got away with paying Michael Jordan
$33.14 million last season -- more than 17 teams paid their entire roster.
The Bird exception also is how the Minnesota
Timberwolves were able to renegotiate Kevin Garnett's
deal to give him $126 million over six years after his current contract
expires.
The owners want to do away with the Bird exception -- or at least modify
it -- so the salary cap actually would mean something.
NBA owners have a fistful of facts when they cry about escalating salaries
killing the league. They claim at least 15 of the 29 teams are losing
money, and the teams say they're going to be paying better than 57 percent
of their revenues into player salaries for the 1997-98 season. It probably
will be higher next season. | The Bird rule has
to stay to reward the league's best players, they say.
The union flat-out disputes the league's bookkeeping, too. The NBPA claims
maybe four teams are losing money.
The players agree that too much money is going to the rookies, and that
there are too many veterans making too little. But eliminating the Bird
rule is not the answer, they say. | |
| Rookie contracts | |
Owners' side | Players' side
| |
The owners want to jack up the length
of contracts for first-round draft picks. They're tired of paying big bucks
for rookies just to watch them slip away after three years.
The owners' first proposal called for the contracts to go from three years
to six -- and there are reports that they'd love to make the final three
years unguaranteed. It may not end up being that long. But the length of
rookie contracts almost certainly will increase. | No player worth his union salt wants to OK anything that isn't
guaranteed. But the two sides are closer on this issue than on the cap
issue or the Bird exception.
There are plenty of veterans that blanche at the $126 million Garnett got
from the Timberwolves and the six-year, $80 million deal that kicks in for
Portland Trail
Blazers forward Rasheed
Wallace next season. But that's the owners' fault, they say, not the
system's.
The players' big beef is the NBA no longer has a "middle class." Guys like
Phoenix Suns forward George
McCloud, a key role player who has averaged more than 20 minutes a game
over his nine-year career, is stuck playing for the veteran minimum of
$272,250.
The players would like to see some kind of sliding pay scale based on how
long a player has been in the league. | |
| Marijuana | |
Owners' side | Players' side
| |
Marijuana is not on the list of banned
substances in the NBA, and the league would like to change that. The owners
also would like to institute some kind of marijuana testing, whether it's
mandatory for everyone or random.
It's an image thing with the league. In the wake of Latrell
Sprewell and others, the league wants to make sure it at least looks
like it has its players under control. |
Players balk at anything league-mandated and practically rebel when it's
flat-out mandatory. They quietly fear that this would just be another way
for the league to exercise its muscle over its players. But this is a
negotiable point. Some kind of agreement putting marijuana on the list of
banned substances almost certainly will be included in any new contract.
| |
| Free agency | |
Owners' side | Players' side
| |
There may be nothing worse for a team
than to see a prized, young player go elsewhere when there's nothing the
team can do about it. Owners want to get back what they lost in '95, when
the current bargaining agreement was signed. They want a class of
"restricted" free agents, which usually means the owners want to have the
right to keep their guys by matching offers other teams make for their
players. | Nooooo way. Unfettered free agency after a
minimum time in the league is the only way to go. |
|
| Revenue sources | |
Owners' side | Players' side
| |
The salary cap is calculated on a
formula of "basketball-related income." The owners would love to narrow
what is considered basketball related, therefore lowering the cap and
lowering salaries. They say they can better keep ticket prices in check,
too, with lower salary expenses. | The union would
like nothing better than to broaden what is considered "basketball-related
income," which would push up the salary cap and bump up player salaries.
For instance, the money companies pay to have their names on arenas -- the
so-called "naming rights" -- are not considered basketball-related
revenues. The union thinks that money should be. |
|
| NBA authority | |
Owners' side | Players' side
| |
The NBA wants to maintain the power it
has to suspend, fine and otherwise discipline players. | The NBPA believes the NBA and commissioner David Stern went too far
in voiding Latrell
Sprewell's contract after his run-in with coach P.J. Carlesimo. They'd
like a clearer definition of what Stern and the NBA can and can't do in
regard to the disciplining of players. |
|
| Related information |
| Multimedia |
 Click here for the latest audio and video
|
| Search our site | Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day |
|
|
Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call 1-888-53-CNNSI. |
|
