NBA Union
The NBA and the Players Association have reportedly agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement. After a long negotiation process, all that is left is for both sides to approve and sign the deal. From the text book we read that a labor union's goal is to "restrain the amount of employment so as to raise wages above the competitive level" (pg. 309). But with the amount of money that NBA players make, was it really necessary to hold out for so long? In an article by Tim Reynolds of the Associated Press, a large obstacle to the deal being finalized was "The target [of] a 50-50 split" of basketball-related income between the players and the owners. The players wanted a 51-49 split, which might seem like a lot of money to us, but to an NBA player it is pocket change. Is it fair/ethical for the Players Union to make such demands in order to get higher wages?
6 Comments:
No it is not fair that the players did this. What happened during this time has been a disgrace. There was no regard for the fans of the NBA. All that these arguments were over was money in nearly every instance. I heard on more than one occasion players calling the current CBA an example of modern day slavery and or an exploitation of workers. Does anyone else think that this sounds like a poor statement? I think that one of the most interesting things about the NBA lockout is that Michael Jordan, the owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, vocalized his opinion against a revenue share increase. If the players were owners they would have had the same argument that the current owners have, and the owners would have had the same complaints that the players have.
We as fans and consumers continue to purchase single-game tickets, season tickets, memorabilia, etc. Consequently, this influx of cash means that the money has to be divvied up somehow. I happen to be on the owners side on this one, as they are the ones assuming the financial risks. They can always find more players, and if not, they will play for less, we may just all have to be strong and hold out a year, or two
Mitchell raised the question is it ethical/fair for union members to ban together to increase their wages. My response would be yes, it is fair and ethical. The NBA organization is a business. It exists to make money. If the players feel like they should be paid more, they have the right to petition it. Union strikes are beneficial in that they help to correct poor business practices. With that said, I would be quite ok with the NBA organization ceasing to exist.
I must correct Papa Smurf. The players didn't do this. The owners are the ones that are asking for more money. They are the ones that Lockout the players from playing. This is a fun topic becuase the only loser here appears to be the fans because of the missed games. However; according to David Berri an SUU Perfessor this lockout like others in the past will not have an effect on the fan participation moving forward. All-in-all the players made one vital mistake which makes them the loser of this negotiation. They didn't even play their only bargaining chip. They should have just started their own league.
The economic impact in a struggling economy is what bothers me with this NBA lock-out situation. We have an economy in great need of employment and small business success. I don't care who's side is responsible for the mess, whether it is the players or the owners, it doesn't matter, we are all getting burned here. Part of the reason that our country is hurting is from this greed, which we see in large part from our government elects that take action to benefit themselves, other than for us as the people. In a situation such as this this lock-out, everyone loses...
-1 on Gubler Family for a spelling error.
I think all interested parties ought to go talk to Dave Berri about this. My expertise in this area is non-existent compared to his.
In economics, "fair/ethical" are not ideas that are well-defined. As to the normative question about what split the players should accept, there doesn't seem to be much discussion of why the battleground chosen is in the 49-57% range for the players at all. What do the owners bring that is worth the rest?
Having said my (small) piece, what economics are any of the commenters bringing to the table here? I see lots of bloviation without much content here.
Post a Comment
<< Home