Basketball Legend: When Pride Still Matters

Chapter 854 854 533

?Chapter 854: 533 Chapter 854: 533 The pity party had shifted from the NBA draft to the labor disputes between the employers and employees.

Represented by Michael Jordan, owners of smaller markets claimed that they had lost 300 million US dollars in this so-called unprecedentedly successful season of professional basketball that had just ended.

The root of these losses could be traced back to the CBA agreement reached between the parties in 2005.

That year, the League made concessions on the so-called “basketball income” distribution to reduce the salary term of top-paid players from seven to five years and to ban high school players from the draft.

Since that year, players have taken 57% of the basketball income each season.

These small-market owners claim that it’s the unfair distribution of revenue that has led to their annual losses of hundreds of millions of dollars ever since.

Facing the financial statements submitted by the employers, the players’ union admitted that some teams were losing money, but questioned whether the losses were as substantial as the owners claimed, and opposed the League’s desire to set a hard salary cap, to cut salaries, and to shorten the maximum duration of contracts.

With the breakdown of the first negotiation in July, a shutdown was imminent.

Professional basketball was facing its first possible shutdown since the summer of 1998 that could affect the next regular season, and players were beginning to prepare for similar circumstances, with many saying they would consider playing overseas to earn a salary.

Stern said, “From our perspective, what we see is one of the most profitable sports leagues, which will become even more profitable through the players’ concessions. The NFL’s average salary is 2 million US dollars, while ours is 5 million US dollars, and the owners are not profiting.”

The core issue remains the distribution of basketball revenues. According to the old agreement, players’ income was guaranteed at 57%, but the League stated that without a significant adjustment to this number, the loss issue could not be resolved.

Union president Derek Fisher was not the kind of die-hard like his predecessor, Patrick Ewing, who could not see beyond money.

As a role player in professional basketball, Fisher was well aware that a shutdown like the one in the summer of 1998 was a major hit to the lower-tier players.

Therefore, he had discussed within the players’ union the possibility of reducing the 57% share of basketball income to 54.5% in order to reach a new CBA agreement.

This proposal caused significant division within the players’ camp.

Yu Fei was the leading opponent.

“If we don’t play, the NBA is no longer the NBA,” Yu Fei said at the meeting, “We brought the world’s best basketball games to the audience, and that’s why the League signed the biggest TV broadcasting contract in history last year. 57% of the income is what we deserve!”

“Listen, our basketball income doesn’t include home game ticket money, local TV broadcasting contracts, or any other big or small business revenues.” Yu Fei was very clear about the contradictions of the whole issue, “This is a problem caused by the imbalance in revenue between large and small market teams, not our problem. If we choose to concede on this issue, gentlemen, we are paying for incapable owners like Michael Jordan!”

As the players’ leader and also the leader of the middle generation, Yu Fei’s voice was loud at the meeting.

On the contrary, LeBron James, who has always been determined to be “more than just a basketball player,” was absent at this crucial moment.

He only expressed his support for the players’ union through emails and text messages but did not participate in specific affairs.

Kobe, who opposed the shutdown, had a small qualm about Yu Fei’s approach, “Frye, I’m not sure how much of this is for the collective good of the players, and how much is because of your personal vendetta with Michael.”

“A personal vendetta?” Yu Fei laughed sarcastically, “Do you know how much money we would lose if we agree to take 54.5% in the next labor agreement?”

Kobe remained silent.

“That’s 150 million US dollars.”

Kobe did not respond.

For him, it was a significant amount of money, but not an outrageously large figure.

“Divide this money by 325 (the number of active players in the League), and that’s 460,000 US dollars.” Yu Fei said loudly, “I mean, everyone here, every player in this League, would be paying 460,000 US dollars to help out an inept owner like Michael Jordan out of his troubles. I want to ask, how many of you are willing to pay this money? My stance is that bastard doesn’t deserve to get a single penny from me!”

Fisher had a different opinion, but he would not oppose Yu Fei’s point of view at this meeting.

Because Yu Fei was not wrong, but neither was he.

The two came from different backgrounds and held different statuses.

Even though Fisher was the president, the head of the union, the nominal leader of the negotiations, his status indeed did not compare to Yu Fei’s.

It was because of his different position that he had a different perspective.

Yu Fei’s view was simple, he had saved Seattle SuperSonics from the fate of relocation, achieving a rare economic prosperity in professional basketball.

An annual profit of over a hundred million US dollars was astonishing for any sports club.

But he, the creator of this economic boom, had never tried to take money from Clay Bennett’s pocket.

And now, this group of people wanted to cut the players’ income to subsidize those loss-making teams?

What kind of logic was that?

Your losses are not caused by the players, as a collective, shouldn’t those big-market teams share some of their profits to support the small-market teams?