233 replies to this topic

[lexrageorge]

And so will the owners, starting with a big, fat anti-trust lawsuit with the potential for an award of treble damages, plus a court delving into the league's finances.

A lawsuit that will likely take many years, and one that the prospects for any "victory" for the PA are by no means certain.

[TheRooster]

The average player gets ~1.5 times what the average NFL player gets, and its guaranteed.

The bolded part is the key. Ask Leigh Bodden if he'd prefer the NBA deal. To argue for a second that any player, other than a mid-career superstar QB, wouldn't be better off in the NBA is nuts.

[Sportsbstn]

I don't know what makes you feel this way since this tactic has been enormously successful. The owners said months ago they would not exceed 50% for the players, the players said they would not bend on 53%, until they dropped to 52.5%, then 51%, and now 50%. So whatever stance the owners are taking (call it ultimatums if you'd like) are clearly working. The owners have "conceeded" some on the B-list items but the BRI has always been the elephant in the room. They have accomplished their goal of the negotiations which is to get the union to agree to take a deal to the players and from there allow the players to make the choice if they wish to receive compensation to play basketball in their league or to seek employment elsewhere. Without the "ultimatums" their isn't a vote this week. Hopefully the players are not brainwashed into believing by not being paid this year (or longer) they are standing up for their rights as this will cost many of these voting union members their careers which would be a shame.

To me this deal was always going to come down to 50-50, because many owners wanted 53-47 in their favor, so 50% (or damn close) was likely the best offer the players were going to get and they very well knew it. The owners to me are the ones who moved up 1st, with some hardliners done so kicking and screaming. You might be right that the ultimatums are pushing it a bit faster, but I am not really sure that is the case over moreover time is running out on the season anyway. Either way, unless the union decertifies and goes after huge damages in court, (which in fact could destroy the NBA ironically), the owners are going to get a lopsided victory...if only because they have to, to keep the NBA financially sound. The players are trying to save some face and say they did not completely cave, these threats to play overseas are fine, but they will find out fast how shitty that is for the majority of players.

The players leverage is really to decertify and PRAY they get a judgement, which are iffy odds in that.

Edited by Sportsbstn, 13 November 2011 - 01:01 PM.

[HomeRunBaker]

And so will the owners, starting with a big, fat anti-trust lawsuit with the potential for an award of treble damages, plus a court delving into the league's finances.

Let me know how that works out for the many players who will never play another NBA minute or receive another NBA paycheck. What other league can they play where the MINIMUM salary starts at $500K for rookies and escalates to $850K for 3rd year players? Good luck to them.....vote wisely my friends.

[Brickowski]

The lawsuit won't take years. Once it gets past summary judgment it will be settled in conjunction with implementation of a new CBA-- just like what happened in the NFL. Decertification is the players' best weapon.

IMHO If the players take the deal that is on the table they will be eating shit for at least the next decade.

[lexrageorge]

The lawsuit won't take years. Once it gets past summary judgment it will be settled in conjunction with implementation of a new CBA-- just like what happened in the NFL. Decertification is the players' best weapon.

IMHO If the players take the deal that is on the table they will be eating shit for at least the next decade.

The summary judgment in the NFL case turned out to be mostly favorable to the owners, and it took a few months to get there. The difference is that those few months meant the players missed a few team meetings. In the NBA those few months mean the season is likely kaput.

And you're assuming the owners will be in a rush to settle at that point. Time to stop looking at this case through rose colored glasses; the owners hold all the cards here, and there's not a lot of incentive for them to give up those cards right now.

[HomeRunBaker]

This so-called "bad deal" would still be the best CBA in professional team sports. NFLers would drool to be voting on the offer that Stern managed to get to a vote. If your idea of these particular players getting "screwed over" as opposed to losing what, 10-100% of their career earnings they are delusional if they feel this lost money out of their pockets will ever be returned.

Imagine being a player, voting No, missing this season and possibly part of next, and then either have their career over (for marginal players this is a very real risk with 2 classes of young talent entering the league) only to be left without a job? This will happen to many players and many others will be walking away from over 50% of their future earnings......and they will be left wondering what it was all for. Take the deal and play ball players as it is the best offer you will see.


EDIT: I just read about the D-league pay inclusion. Is anyone else besides Bucher reporting this? Either he has a great source that nobody else has or he is being badly informed.

Bucher is a tool. There is no D-League clause in the proposal linked below.

http://www.usatoday.... 11-11-2011.pdf

[Brickowski]

The summary judgment in the NFL case turned out to be mostly favorable to the owners, and it took a few months to get there. The difference is that those few months meant the players missed a few team meetings. In the NBA those few months mean the season is likely kaput.

And you're assuming the owners will be in a rush to settle at that point. Time to stop looking at this case through rose colored glasses; the owners hold all the cards here, and there's not a lot of incentive for them to give up those cards right now.

There was no summary judgment in the NFL antitrust case. It settled, with the new CBA being part of the settlement. Of course the owners hold most of the cards at this point-- thanks to that putz Billy Hunter and Uncle Tom Derek Fisher. In any event, when the other side holds most of the cards, you should try playing a different game.

Edited by Brickowski, 13 November 2011 - 10:08 PM.

[HomeRunBaker]

There was no summary judgment in the NFL antitrust case. It settled, with the new CBA being part of the settlement. Of course the owners hold most of the cards at this point-- thanks to that putz Billy Hunter and Uncle Tom Derek Fisher. In any event, when the other side holds most of the cards, you should try playing a different game.

Didn't the settlement occur AFTER the NFL won its appeal that the unions anti-trust case had no merit? If the NBA players take this same path and receive the same result in court (win initially, lose on appeal) how are they in a better spot with no leverage, no union, and no season?

Maybe i'm missing something as i'm certainly not a law expert, i'm only trying to understand why you feel that decertification was always the slam-dunk waiting to happen.

[Brickowski]

I'd suggest going to the Patriot's forums to find out what you are missing. There were several threads on this topic.



Decertification isn't a slam dunk. But it's a hell of alot better than eating shit.

Edited by Brickowski, 13 November 2011 - 10:36 PM.

[HomeRunBaker]

I'd suggest going to the Patriot's forums to find out what you are missing. There were several threads on this topic.



Decertification isn't a slam dunk. But it's a hell of alot better than eating shit.

Voting for the best professional sports CBA is far from shit. This isn't the 2005 CBA and this isn't the 2005 economy either. This proposal is very fair to the players when you consider how little leverage they had going in.

[wutang112878]

Voting for the best professional sports CBA is far from shit. This isn't the 2005 CBA and this isn't the 2005 economy either. This proposal is very fair to the players when you consider how little leverage they had going in.

From a BRI standpoint, its better than the NHL, NFL or MLB. But just based on that we cant say hands down that its the best CBA in sports, because the revenue sharing model is probably the worst of the 4 major sports. The Bucks or Bobcats simply cant compete payroll wise with the Lakers or Knicks, and its not MLB where teams can collect young inexpensive talent that truly helps their team. This revenue sharing is significant because both MLB and the NFL have shown that allowing most teams to have a chance to win it all every year increases fan interest, and ultimately revenue which is what has helped fuel their growth. The NBA simply doesnt have that, so if I am the players I can understand why they would want more BRI than the other 3 major sports especially considering that in the new CBA it is rumored that there are many restrictions and rules around free agency regarding sign and trades, total years for a contract, changes to the exception policy, changes to tax paying teams, etc. To summarize, BRI wise they would get the highest number, but there are a lot of other issues with the CBA that make that number suspect.

[jsinger121]

WojYahooNBA

Players reject deal, and will file anti-trust action against the NBA.

[jsinger121]

WojYahooNBA

The lawyers will file suit within next two days. No need to wait on decertification. Union is disbanded immediately.

[Statman]

So much for the season.....

[mikeford]

Season's done, forget about it. Everyone involved in this is a joke.

[Hendu's Gait]

Disclaimer of interest filed, not a de-certification. My understanding is that it speeds up things, and allows more flexibility, but the PA is now basically a trade association and not a union. Seems to me that this shows more weakness than a de-certification.

I actually think this leaves some hope for a half-season, as opposed to the waiting period for de-certification which surely would have killed it.

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 14 November 2011 - 02:08 PM.

[Jeff Van GULLY]

People actually thought there was going to be a deal? I was suckered the first few times they reported the sides were close but about 2-3 weeks ago I lost all hope.

Both sides have their extremists (especially on the owners IMO) and there isn't enough common sense to bridge the gap.

I suspect contracting teams will be the next leverage tool used by the owners, after the 47% proposal.

Does it matter though? It seems this will be decided by the courts. NBAPA is betting on anti-trust action to give them leverage, otherwise they're going to be eating a massive shit sandwich.

Edited by Jeff Van GULLY, 14 November 2011 - 02:13 PM.

[Hendu's Gait]

Is there any doubt that contraction (Charlotte/Sacto/Memphis/New Orleans (sorry JVG)/Minn or Mil would given a nice 24 number) would be good for the future of the league. Sure, fewer jobs but the ones left would be healthier and if teams are actually losing money, larger pie for less people seems great. Not 100% sure that contraction gives owners leverage. I would love to see it.

P.S. You knew it was a bad sign when the rumors about Wyc being a hard-liner (agreeing with small markets) came out. The franchise has been making money hand or fist.

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 14 November 2011 - 02:19 PM.

[amfox1]

The players have hired David Boies to file antitrust legislation against the NBA.

[mikeford]

P.S. You knew it was a bad sign when the rumors about Wyc being a hard-liner (agreeing with small markets) came out. The franchise has been making money hand or fist.

Have they? Says who?

The Celtics don't own their own building so that significantly decreases their revenue.

[Hendu's Gait]

Have they? Says who?

The Celtics don't own their own building so that significantly decreases their revenue.

Valid point, MF. Does that mean I can go back to hating Jeremy Jacobs (rhetorical)? They do have a nice FSN contract and expensive tickets.

BTW, looks like Wyc has "backed off."

http://www.iamagm.co...hawk.supposedly

Edited by Hendu's Gait, 14 November 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[Brickowski]

Hooray for the players. They didn't cave (I certainly thought they would). The deal being offered by the owners was crap. And contraction in the NBA would be a good thing. Sure, some players will lose jobs. But some fringe owners-- who were the ones fueling the league's hard line approach-- will lose their equity. The people I feel sorry for are the little people: the vendors, the secretaries, the administrative employees, etc. who will lose their jobs. But they will lose them because the owners were pigs, not because the players asserted their legal rights,.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 November 2011 - 02:27 PM.

[Brickowski]

Valid point, MF. Does that mean I can go back to hating Jeremy Jacobs (rhetorical)? They do have a nice FSN contract and expensive tickets.

BTW, looks like Wyc has "backed off."

http://www.iamagm.co...hawk.supposedly

I do not believe the Celtics pay anything for their TD garden lease. Jacobs just gets a percentage of the gate and concessions. Plus the Celtics have a very sweet deal with Comcast that will generate zero revenue if the season is lost.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 November 2011 - 02:33 PM.

[mikeford]

Does that mean I can go back to hating Jeremy Jacobs (rhetorical)?

You stopped?

[Stitch01]

Hooray for the players. They didn't cave (I certainly thought they would). The deal being offered by the owners was crap. And contraction in the NBA would be a good thing. Sure, some players will lose jobs. But some fringe owners-- who were the ones fueling the league's hard line approach-- will lose their equity. The people I feel sorry for are the little people: the vendors, the secretaries, the administrative employees, etc. who will lose their jobs. But they will lose them because the owners were pigs, not because the players asserted their legal rights,.

They arent going to take a zero on their equity. They will get their franchise rights bought out, I would guess at a tidy profit.

[Rudy Pemberton]

They arent going to take a zero on their equity. They will get their franchise rights bought out, I would guess at a tidy profit.

Which suggest the league is doing pretty good. If there are really teams that can't figure out how to make the business work, then the owners should sell. That they don't leads me to think that teams really aren't losing money.

[Statman]

I firmly believe that many of the teams are losing money. It's just a matter of how much money.

For instance, the Celtics, one of the so-called big market teams, only receive about 45-50 million annually in television revenue (includes local and national broadcast rights) during the 2010-2011 season. The team had a 76 million dollar roster last year so they had to make up the difference just from ticket sales, concessions, etc.

[ccsubruce]

Blow. It. Up.


Admittedly I'm not a fan of the NBA, but this is a mess that will only get cleaned up when the whole thing goes nuclear. Wow.

[wutang112878]

I firmly believe that many of the teams are losing money. It's just a matter of how much money.

For instance, the Celtics, one of the so-called big market teams, only receive about 45-50 million annually in television revenue (includes local and national broadcast rights) during the 2010-2011 season. The team had a 76 million dollar roster last year so they had to make up the difference just from ticket sales, concessions, etc.

Do you believe that teams are losing money on their income statement [which can be doctored] or they actually lost money in terms of cash flow? I believe the NBA could easily document $300M in income statement losses, but that doesnt mean that a business is actually bleeding cash.

In addition, some franchises dont make actual profit on a yearly basis but the real profit is found in the appreciation of the value of the franchise. The Lakers, Celtics and Knicks are great examples of that, not a huge profit margin for them considering what they spend but they are some of the most valuable franchises in the league and continue to appreciate in value.

BTW - do you have a source for you tv revenue figures?

[wutang112878]

Blow. It. Up.


Admittedly I'm not a fan of the NBA, but this is a mess that will only get cleaned up when the whole thing goes nuclear. Wow.

If blowing it up would result in a great revenue sharing deal, where all teams were on an equal footing so success was determined by how well a franchise was run not their financial capabilities and players that were just above average werent given foolish contracts as a result, I am all for it. However, blowing it up just to shuffle pieces around the board [which is basically what they are currently proposing with the restrictions on how free agency works] doesnt really change much IMO.

[Statman]

Do you believe that teams are losing money on their income statement [which can be doctored] or they actually lost money in terms of cash flow? I believe the NBA could easily document $300M in income statement losses, but that doesnt mean that a business is actually bleeding cash.

In addition, some franchises dont make actual profit on a yearly basis but the real profit is found in the appreciation of the value of the franchise. The Lakers, Celtics and Knicks are great examples of that, not a huge profit margin for them considering what they spend but they are some of the most valuable franchises in the league and continue to appreciate in value.

BTW - do you have a source for you tv revenue figures?

I think the Celtics, but for the fact that Wyc spent big to help the team, would be losing money on a cash flow basis. I have no clue how much it costs to transport the team, put them up on first-rate hotels, hire a coaching staff, etc. (i.e., all costs associated with running a team), but if a successful team like the Celtics is booking only 45-50 million annually in broadcast revenue, then I can't imagine what a team like the Bucks or the Kings are making annually.

As for the TV revenue figures, here are the links that I got the figures from. The Celtics are about to sign a new deal which adds roughly 20 million to their local TV deal of 15-20, but that still is a low number to me.

The Boston Celtics are reportedly finalizing an extension to the team's broadcast deal with Comcast SportsNet New England, and Forbes' Michael Ozanian reports that the new contract is expected to add $20 million to the franchise's annual local TV take, which has been reported to be $15-20 million.

http://www.sbnation....net-new-england

The NBA’s contract with ESPN/ABC is worth $485 million annually, while the contract with TNT is worth $445 million. That means the league will be paid $930 million -- or $31 million per team -- in national broadcast rights for this season.

http://aol.sportingn...-during-lockout

[Rudy Pemberton]

Need to add radio rights as well, which would at least a few million...but regardless, how much are they pulling in per home date? According to some info I found, teams average ~$850k per home date in ticket sales only. So, that would be ~$35M and I'm assuming more likely closer to $50M since the C's tickets are more expensive than most. Then, you've got to add all the add'l marketing rights for official sponsors of the team and all that. I imagine the C's are doing well.

[HomeRunBaker]

Hooray for the players. They didn't cave (I certainly thought they would). The deal being offered by the owners was crap. And contraction in the NBA would be a good thing. Sure, some players will lose jobs. But some fringe owners-- who were the ones fueling the league's hard line approach-- will lose their equity. The people I feel sorry for are the little people: the vendors, the secretaries, the administrative employees, etc. who will lose their jobs. But they will lose them because the owners were pigs, not because the players asserted their legal rights,.

Yeah, hooray for players who may never again see an NBA paycheck. Very well informed there players. What a major LOL.

Fuck these players. Who the fuck do they think they are walking away from millions of millions of dollars to play basketball? Oh wait, that's right.....this is a "bad deal" for them. Good luck feeding the family losers.

[jose melendez]

Have any NBA teams been sold at a loss? Teams may indeed be losing money on the balance sheet, but the fact that people keep selling them at higher prices than they bought them suggests that there is demand.

[Brickowski]

Yeah, hooray for players who may never again see an NBA paycheck. Very well informed there players. What a major LOL.

Fuck these players. Who the fuck do they think they are walking away from millions of millions of dollars to play basketball? Oh wait, that's right.....this is a "bad deal" for them. Good luck feeding the family losers.

They'll get a better deal after they decertify and get paid retroactively. That's what happened in the NFL.

I guess the players weren't quite so hungry for that Nov. 15th paycheck as the owners thought. It's nice to see the players sacrifcing for guys who will be in the league 5-10 years from now instead of thinking only of themselves. You seem to resent the fact that the players make good money. Well, they are the talent--what people pay to see-- not the owners. Do you resent the money that Brad Pitt makes, or David Letterman or George Clooney? (Maybe you do.)

[Paul M]

Why would someone buy an asset that is losing money? Arrogance or are they really not losing money--negative cash flow. You can create a loss pretty easily with the depreciation expense. I have to imagine private equity guys do not buy something unless it can return at least 15%. But, financial logic rarely applies when it comes to sports.

I feel bad for the real fans of the NBA and the people that will really suffer if there is no season.

[Statman]

Have any NBA teams been sold at a loss? Teams may indeed be losing money on the balance sheet, but the fact that people keep selling them at higher prices than they bought them suggests that there is demand.

Bob Johnson reportedly sold the Bobcats to Michael Jordan for a loss of roughly 25 million dollars. That doesn't even include the money the team was bleeding on a yearly basis due to lack of attendance and sponsorships.

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5003048

[Brickowski]

Bob Johnson reportedly sold the Bobcats to Michael Jordan for a loss of roughly 25 million dollars. That doesn't even include the money the team was bleeding on a yearly basis due to lack of attendance and sponsorships.

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5003048

Charlotte is ACC country. The NBA was stupid in trying to put a franchise there in the first place, and Jordan was stupid to buy it from Johnson. George Shinn couldn't make money there either, which is why he moved the original Hornets franchise to New Orleans. I have zero sympathy for Jordan. Why should the players be forced to pay for the bad business judgement of Bob Johnson and Michael Jordan? It's not their job to subsidize the owners, or pay out of their own pockets for the bad business decisions of others.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 November 2011 - 04:56 PM.

[ElUno20]

The players have given on every single thing and haven't gotten one thing in return that they never had originally. This move was bound to happen.

[Marbleheader]

I agree, cc, blow it up. If this hiatus results in a better product, then it has merit. Look at all aspects of the game as well as the finances. If its all just about how to split the cash pot, then the NBA and everyone involved is screwing themselves over. The Bird Era Celtics were my first sports love, I have been a fan ever since. I had season tickets from '79-'95. However, there's plenty to fill my sports calendar if the NBA disappeared and never came back. They're delusional if they think their sport is indespensible, even to lifelong fans. I was dissatisfied with the product before this bullshit, now I just want to tell Stern, the owners and players to go fuck themselves.

[HomeRunBaker]

Charlotte is ACC country. The NBA was stupid in trying to put a franchise there in the first place, and Jordan was stupid to buy it from Johnson. George Shinn couldn't make money there either, which is why he moved the original Hornets franchise to New Orleans. I have zero sympathy for Jordan. Why should the players be forced to pay for the bad business judgement of Bob Johnson and Michael Jordan? It's not their job to subsidize the owners, or pay out of their own pockets for the bad business decisions of others.

I can't even begin to tell you how misinformed you are.

1. Raleigh is ACC country with UNC, Duke, and NC State each within a 30-mile radius with their rabid fan bases dominating the region. You literally cannot go anywhere in the Raleigh area without seeing someone wearing gear from these schools. The only school within a 2 1/2 hour drive from Charlotte is tiny Wake Forest and their 4500 student enrollment. While many people are ACC fans in Charlotte there is not a local ACC school in the area to support.

2. Largely in part to #1 the Charlotte Hornets led the NBA in attendance for EIGHT consecutive seasons before George Shinn demanded the taxpayers build him a new arena which they refused to do as he packaged it into a megadeal to include a baseball stadium and museums along with it for close to $400m. Finally, he refused to pay 70% of the cost of the arena only while in the midst of a nasty charge of kidnapping and sexual assault of a Charlotte woman while led to former Hornet employees making claims of sexualy misconduct on Shinn as well. The NBA couldn't get Shinn out of Charlotte soon enough and the people of Charlotte ran him out of town once it was clear he wasn't selling the team.

3. The problem was not support for a team in Charlotte (see #2) but rather the fact that the public began boycotting Hornet games due to the owner being a) an accused sexual predator, b) shamelessly attempting to force feed a new arena down the publics throat in a not so tactful way, and c) playing in an arena that while good for viewing a basketball game did not possess the luxury suite amenities to fully take advantage of the areas love for this team.

4. The taxpayers again boycotted the expansion Bobcats due to Bob Johnson sneaky maneuver to have an arena referendum passed where many voters were not even aware they were voting to pay for the arena. Following the Shinn escapades the public was outraged that Johnson went ahead and bullied them so they refused to support the team.

That my friend is why Charlotte is skeptical of the business of the NBA and many have refused to ever again support and NBA team after what Shinn did to them.

[Brickowski]

The owners in Charlotte alienated the fans? Sure, I'll buy that argument. But the owners should pay for their stupidity, not the players. If Michael Jordan is losing money, I say, "Good!" Go make some more underwear ads to make up the difference. Don't use the Charlotte franchise and its inability to make money as some sort of justification for screwing the players in contract negotiations.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 November 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[Tyrone Biggums]

I can only imagine if Jeffrey Kessler had a twitter

@RGoodell: Raspberries, $$$$$$$$$$$$

[Lazy vs Crazy]

This so-called "bad deal" would still be the best CBA in professional team sports.

You keep repeating this and I'm wondering what the the hell you're talking about. You know the NHL deal that is apparently so terrible? The one they lost a season for and still got screwed on or whatever? Players get a 57% share of HRI.

And are you really going to say that NBA players have it better than MLB players?

Could you tell us all why this proposed CBA is so much better than what the other sports have? Because it really doesn't add up.

[jose melendez]

So just to clarify, we have one example of a team being sold at a loss.

[HomeRunBaker]

You keep repeating this and I'm wondering what the the hell you're talking about. You know the NHL deal that is apparently so terrible? The one they lost a season for and still got screwed on or whatever? Players get a 57% share of HRI.

And are you really going to say that NBA players have it better than MLB players?

Could you tell us all why this proposed CBA is so much better than what the other sports have? Because it really doesn't add up.

You know what doesn't add up? That the players are being manipulated by Hunter and/or the agents to forfeit a large percentage of their career earnings and in some cases.....the remainder of their career earnings to fight a fight that they simply cannot win. The players aren't being used by the owners, they are being used by Hunter and the agents! Hunter has even used all of us who actually believed we were "this close" to a deal.....bull-fuckin-shit! At no point was Hunter going to allow this proposal to go to a vote and all these "concessions" were nothing but a sham because he was never going to allow it to be voted on by the players.

David Stern has included a lockout clause in every one of his TV rights negotiations so the big elephant in the room is that each owner is GUARANTEED $31m from the ESPN/TNT contracts. This is why the owners can afford to sit out the season with little risk in their long-term investment......they have $31m coming in and a large window in the future to run their business at a profit. The player has $0 coming in and a small window with which to earn a living.

Wow, just writing that makes me cringe at these players allowing Hunter to play them like this. What are the players fighting for and what leads them to believe they will ever receive it no matter how many seasons they miss? It's criminal what these players are allowing Hunter and the agents persuade them to do and more players like Kevin Martin need to speak up and very soon before it is too late!

[ElUno20]

Why is the assumption that the owners and stern are the only ones who can play a smart move ?

[Joe D Reid]

David Stern has included a lockout clause in every one of his TV rights negotiations so the big elephant in the room is that each owner is GUARANTEED $31m from the ESPN/TNT contracts. This is why the owners can afford to sit out the season with little risk in their long-term investment......they have $31m coming in and a large window in the future to run their business at a profit. The player has $0 coming in and a small window with which to earn a living.

That is essentially what the NFL did, and it earned them an adverse court ruling--if I had to guess, this will be subject 1 or 2 in the forthcoming wave of litigation.

[bowiac]

Didn't the settlement occur AFTER the NFL won its appeal that the unions anti-trust case had no merit? If the NBA players take this same path and receive the same result in court (win initially, lose on appeal) how are they in a better spot with no leverage, no union, and no season?

The NFL did not win such an appeal. The NFL won an appeal that allowed them to continue the lockout, but the court took no position on whether such a lockout would be a violation of antitrust laws. Basically, the union sued to force the owners to let them play. The courts said that they can't end a labor dispute like that.

What this means for the NBA, assuming other circuits follow the Eighth Circuit's precedent (big assumption), is that the NBA players can't sue to end to the lockout. They can still sue to recover damages from the lockout if a court rules that the lockout was a violation of antitrust laws however.

Wow, just writing that makes me cringe at these players allowing Hunter to play them like this. What are the players fighting for and what leads them to believe they will ever receive it no matter how many seasons they miss? It's criminal what these players are allowing Hunter and the agents persuade them to do and more players like Kevin Martin need to speak up and very soon before it is too late!

In the abstract, with an antitrust lawsuit, the players could earn triple their actual damages. If they lose the entire season due to a lockout, that could be approximately $6.84 Billion (assuming 57% of $4B is their actual damages).

An antitrust suit could be very bad for the owners. I don't actually know for certain if the players would win, because I don't know a tremendous amount of labor law. However, from an antitrust perspective, their case is exceptionally good. 30 businesses got together and decided they would pay no more than a certain amount for a given input (labor). That's a no no usually.