Quantcast
Thursday, December 1st, 2011 at 9:15 am  |  11 responses

NBA Teams Still Haven’t Figured Out a Revenue-Sharing Plan


The hardest of hard-liners during the NBA lockout claimed that they needed a more robust revenue-sharing plan for their business to remain functional, but after gouging the players at the negotiating table, they seem perfectly content dragging their feet on the issue. Shocking, I know. From ESPN: “If you’ve wondered why there’s been no discussion of the NBA’s new revenue-sharing plan it’s because there isn’t one – at least, not a finalized one that’s ready to be shared. ‘Those things are still being worked out as we speak,’ a league source said. This was supposed to be an important component of the collective bargaining talks – a parallel negotiation, as David Stern described it at the outset of last season. There would be simultaneous negotiations between the owners and players and between the owners and other owners. As it turned out, the owners got the money from the players first (an additional $300 million per season swung toward their side) without determining exactly how they will divide it among themselves. And while virtually every other aspect of the new CBA is out there for analysis, there’s been scarcely a word about revenue sharing. The memo outlining the terms of the new deal merely had this to say: ‘The NBA will commit to maintaining during each year of the CBA the revenue sharing plan that the NBA has described to the Players Association.’ Not exactly a detailed breakdown. Or even a guarantee. NBA sources who are normally chatty get real quiet when I bring up the topic of revenue sharing. They get very relieved when I move on to other topics. The revenue-sharing plan is so super-secret you’d think you were asking a football coach for his game plan. ‘It’s hard for me to describe it,’ one source said. ‘It’s creative, it’s unique…it’s really complicated.’ The general understanding is that it will triple the money available in the revenue-sharing pool, bringing it to about $150 million. But there is still disagreement about what will be asked of the payers and who will qualify to be receivers.”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: ,

  • Morgan

    To qualify as a receiver the team should have to win a minimum of 20 games in a single season.

  • http://www.slamonline.com UNFROZEN CAVEMAN LAWYER

    THE CAPS CONTINUE!!!

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    There’s a shocker. I thought this was supposed to be a done deal months ago? Isn’t that what Stern told us?
    Nothing to see here, move along…

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzpOkVb5KN8 nbk

    Hey, looks like the owners weren’t really losing any money, and were more focused on restricting rights than making money. I mean, if it were about what they said it was about, you’d think this aspect of the CBA would have been figured out in like July.

  • LA Huey

    They wanna follow the NFL model only when it benefits them. Surprising.

  • http://cnbc.com JTaylor21

    Greeedy clowns.

  • anthony y

    Can the player file for fraud if the owners don’t release a detailed plan for revenue sharing seeing as that was a major part of the deal? Allen p I’m looking to you for an answer.

  • Soulquarian

    The players need to hire a better representative now in preparation for 6 years from now when they can opt out of the deal. The owners will take every penny from them otherwise.

  • zap

    this is sooo stupid to think players have any rights to an owners profit? did they invest their money in the team? do they agree to take half the over priced $5M avg salary in exchange for stock? if these clowns would have stayed in college and actually learned something about running a business but they are mini obama’s.. clueless

  • http://slamonline.com nbk

    ^ your the one that is clearly clueless

  • http://slamonline.com Allenp

    Anthony the simple answer is no.
    Zap
    NBA players have as much right to the company’s profits as high priced attorneys, Wall Street investors, and any other high paid employee you can think of. They have a larger impact on the success and failure of the business and that provides them with the leverage to demand more money.
    They provide a supply that is hard to replace and is high demand.
    Those are the basics of economics. Which you apparently failed to stay in school and learn.

Advertisement