NAHSTE
New member
... and some other things. They just released their counter-proposal for the new collective bargaining agreement. Interesting shit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/sports/basketball/09union.html?_r=1&ref=sports
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/sports/basketball/09union.html?_r=1&ref=sports
The standoff between owners and players in the N.B.A. is measured mostly in dollars and rhetoric. But the divide runs deeper, with competing goals and divergent visions of what a healthy league should look like.
That chasm became more apparent with a review of the players’ proposed changes to the labor agreement, details of which were provided to The New York Times.
While the owners are pursuing a sweeping overhaul of the N.B.A.’s economic system, the players union is seeking modest changes — from a loosening of trade rules and free-agency restrictions to an elimination of the age limit and a more generous pension for retired players.
The union’s full proposal was outlined by its executive director, Billy Hunter, in a podcast sent to players late last week. Its contents were described by a person with union ties who has heard the podcast and reviewed the written proposal. The person spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve his access to the information.
The most substantial concession — an offer to reduce the players’ guarantee of 57 percent of revenues — was disclosed by Hunter in an interview with The Times last month. Other items, like a push for increased revenue-sharing, have been known for some time. But the rest of the union’s proposal has remained confidential until now.
In his podcast, Hunter outlines the following ideas:
¶A call for “enhanced trade and signing flexibility,” which Hunter characterizes as “a win-win” for players and teams.
Currently, teams that are over the salary cap must match salaries, within 125 percent, to make a trade. The union wants to roughly double the standard, to make it within 150 percent, which would make trades easier to construct, thus fostering player movement. The union also wants to eliminate “base-year compensation,” an arcane rule that makes it difficult to trade players after they receive a major raise.
¶A request to drop the age limit back to 18.
In 2005, with the union’s agreement, the N.B.A. began requiring all incoming players to be at least 19 years old and one year removed from high school. The union supported the rule begrudgingly and wants it changed back. Hunter is proposing instead that the N.B.A. adopt rules that “incentivize high school and college athletes to attend school.” No specifics are offered, but one possibility would be to adjust the rookie wage scale to reward players who stay in school.
¶A push to make restricted free agency less onerous.
Under the current rules, when a restricted free agent signs an offer sheet, his team has seven days to match it. That time period is sufficiently long that it discourages rivals from making offers. The union wants to reduce it by several days. It also wants qualifying offers — which trigger the restricted status — to be higher.
¶A call for increased revenue-sharing among the owners.
The N.B.A. has the most meager revenue-sharing plan among the three major professional sports. It is the only league that does not share national television revenue equally, according to the union. The N.B.A. is already working on a new revenue-sharing plan, but considers it separate from collective bargaining. The union wants to have input.
¶A proposal to shorten contracts signed under the midlevel exception, from five years to four.
In return, the union wants to add a second midlevel exception. The additional slot (worth about $5.8 million), which can be used every year, would replace the biannual exception (worth about $2.1 million), which can only be used every other year.
¶An offer to allow major capital expenses — like arena construction and renovation — to be deducted from the revenue pool that is shared by players and owners.
The union’s intent here is to address a major concern for owners — rising costs, and how to account for them when dividing revenues — while supporting investments that help spur growth (i.e., better arenas).
¶A request for neutral review of on-court discipline.
Currently, players can appeal to an arbitrator only for suspensions of 12 games or more. All other appeals of suspensions and fines go to Commissioner David Stern.
¶A push for increased pension benefits.
The union views its proposal, which was delivered July 1, as a starting point for negotiations. But Hunter said the league had yet to respond to it.
Instead, Stern is standing by the proposal he made in January, which includes a 38 percent reduction in player salaries (about $800 million), a rollback of existing salaries, a hard salary cap, shorter contracts, elimination of all cap exceptions and a major reduction in contract guarantees.
If all of those provisions were adopted, it would represent the most drastic changes to the labor deal since the salary-cap system was adopted in 1984. The players’ proposal retains the same basic structure and attempts merely to build on it.
The union contends that teams can reduce costs without new restrictions, citing a three-year trend of decreasing player salaries. Hunter has dismissed the owners’ proposal as “a nonstarter.”
The current collective bargaining agreement expires next July 1. Principals on both sides are bracing for a lockout. The stark contrast between their proposals explains why.
The owners are claiming annual losses in the hundreds of millions. Their clear, primary goal is cost containment, through new rules to restrict spending. The union’s proposal makes some gestures toward reducing costs but seems more focused on expanding player rights. It also reflects the union’s skepticism toward Stern’s claims of economic distress.
Toward the conclusion of his podcast, Hunter makes his stance clear.
“We will not agree to a hard cap,” he says, “when the league is generating record revenues year after year.”
bama: