Discussions / Live Q&A’s

Good question. First, let's be a bit skeptical of the financials that you'll see emanating from each side in the coming days, weeks, (months?), etc.  The dollars will ultimately be returned to season ticketholders (plus interest) who can then pocket or spend the money elsewhere.  Remember, this is all disposable income were talking about here.  Second, advertisers will re-allocate their dollars to other programming that attracts a similar demographic as NBA basketball - namely, college hoops and other sports.  However, the spending that is done won't come close to matching what the advertisers would have spent on NBA broadcasts.  To that extent, it's money taken out of the larger economy for the time being.

Yes.  Players will not get paid during the lockout unless they have negotiated a separate provision that provides otherwise.  That's one of the reasons that you see many of them negotiating with (or already agreeing with)  European teams for the upcoming season. 

Well, the Garden will ose the revenues that it otherwise would have realized from the playing of Knicks games, but the construction won't be impacted either way as the Rangers are playing there.   Not much work is occurring on the building during the playing seasons for both teams.

The traditional mindset is that they are not ready to do so.  The players have a very limited time frame in which to earn their income - that is, the length of their career.  A missed season now is not simply replaced by adding a season at the end of their careers.  Players age at different rates, and once the season is missed it cannot be replicated, obviously.  The NHL was more about the owners' willingness to lose a season than the players'.  I think the NBA owners are willing to sacrifice the  majority of the season (if not the entire season) in order to get the changes that they want.

This is a fair question that is often among the primary complaints that fans have.  So you're not the only one who feels this way.  It's very difficult to compare the salaries of the players to that of the average worker.  Regardless of the perceived value (or lack thereof) of what they are doing for a living, pro athletes are (theoretically) paid based on the revenue that they are generating for the business.  Those who took economics may remember this essentially as Marginal Revenue Product.  But until they start selling tickets to have watch people watch us do our jobs, televising us doing our jobs, etc. it is hard to complain about the salaries.  It's what the market bears, unless the system is broken.  And the NBA owners clearly beleive that the system is broken.  Hence the lockout. 

In a sense you are correct.  As  just mentioned, the NBA owners feel that the system is broken and must be corrected.  The irony here is that they are the ones who broke it in many ways.  The NBA lockout is in place and may be quite lengthy because the owners are seeking a fundamental sea change to the economic system underpinning the league.  Paying players in excess of their MRP is a serious error in judgment.  The owners would like to impose further restrictions on the market for player services to save themselves from making these foolhardy decisions going forward.  In many ways, they need a lockout to save themselves from their own selves.

This is a serious concern for the league - that casual fans won't really miss NBA basketball and that it could take serious time for the league to get back to where it was in popularity in 2010-11.  This was an issue for the NHL and MLB after their work stoppages, and it took some time for the casual fans to fully re-embrace the sport.  David Stern hopes that there's not many more out there like you!

HArd to compare salaries for MLB and NBA players as they are based on different models.  In many ways the comparision you make is due to the leverage differentials that the players you mention possess.  As a young player, Clippard is still udner club control while Arenas was able to take advantage of the free agent marketplace. 

I disagree with your premise in some ways - the NBA has seen some very successful small market teams (see San Antonio).  While they are willing to take a small pay cut, the players would like the market size 'problem' addressed through revenue sharing amongst the teams.  While this may be of some help to some  smaller revenue teams, it also punishes the smaller teams that are well-run.  As has been said before, it's difficult for a league to revenue share its way to profitability.

Some basic level NBA math.  Think of BRI as a fictional pot with most of the NBA's revenue streams put into it.  At the conclusion of each season, the league's bean counters count all of the beans and then as a collective guarantee that the players get exactly 57% of the pot the next season.  If those revenues exceed expectations, then the players get a salary cap bump the following season.  And vice versa.

Die hards will miss the product, sponsors will miss reaching the fans, and Pitt basketball will perhaps get even more attention.  And expect a lot more substitute, niche type sports programming.  This could actually be a boon for the sports that typically find TV time hard to come by.

I like your team name.  Perhaps any new league will take it into consideration.  And you're correct about fans paying to see players, not owners.  While it is certainly possible in theory, we're getting ahead of ourselves when we start tlking about new leagues.  Eventually, this deal will get done.  The owners have too much invested in their teams and buildings (with a lot of debt) and the players won't make nearly as much money in the short and medium term as they do now.  Your insight into barriers to entry is correct - there are 2 big ones when you start thinking about a new league - players and facilities.  Once you solve the players issue, you still have to get new buildings - and it's hard to imagine that kind of capital coming into a new league, whether private or public.

The NBA owners would love this.  The NHL hard cap has been great for the league (though not for the smaller revenue clubs who are forced to pay a very high minimum salary floor - more than many of them can afford).  The ultimate in cost control for the teams.  They simply cannot spend more than the amount desginated (with an exception for short term injured players and players stashed in the minor leagues).  No Larry Bird rule, mid-level exception, etc.  What more could an NBA owner want?  But I have a hard time imagining it happening without losing at least a full season.

The NBA players are largely indifferent to the NFL's situation - and vice versa.  They simply want to maintain the status quo as much as possible - just like the owners wanted to when players were fighting for free agency rights in the first few rounds of collective bargaining in each league beginning in the mid 1970's.  The tides have turned.

It's hard to believe, but even after all of this time the vast majority of the facilities are publicly subsidized.  While there has been serious push back in a couple of municipalities (as any California-based team will tell you), by and large the public has continued to indicate a willingness to 'play ball' even though the pure economics aren't great (or even good, for that matter).  The public can always change its vote (though it's oftentimes going to lose its team to another city whose taxpayers are willing to do so).

We have time for one more question.

Let's finish with this one.  The proverbail 'bottom of the pyramid' will feel it the most, unfortunately.  Game day employees both inside and outside the organization don't get paid if there aren't any games.  I was a vendor for the Ogden concessionaire at the old Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia  (which I'm sure you Washingtonians remember fondly!) as a high school kid, and lots of my colleagues got burned when we couldn't work (and then attendance dropped for the replacement games) during the 1987 NFL strike.  Those are the folks you should feel the worst for.  They rely on that money, and it won't be there.