Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

NBA, union agreement: not much change for fans

NBA, union have a labor deal that gives the owners $3 billion more over the life of the contract. But the NBA, union agreement keeps the league's structure largely intact. 

By Kate FaganThe Philadelphia Inquirer/MCT / December 5, 2011

In this file photo from June, NBA commissioner David Stern speaks to reporters during a news conference after a meeting with the players' union in New York. Except for the change in the revenue split, the NBA, union deal changed very little.

Mary Altaffer/AP/File


The words and phrases associated with the NBA's recent lockout suggested monumental stakes: "nuclear winter," ''catastrophic damages," ''impasse," ''hard-line stances" and "dissolution."

Skip to next paragraph

The league's knowledgeable fans at least thought a new labor agreement could right some of the structural wrongs, to create a system where — as in the NFL — a small-market team such as the Charlotte Bobcats has as much chance of winning as the big-market Los Angeles Lakers.

And considering recent attendance issues, the 76ers in some ways are financially in the same boat as small-market teams such as Charlotte, Sacramento, or Milwaukee.

To understand what happened in the final days of negotiating, picture a castle guarded by the NBA owners. They'd tossed out the players and declared change. For nearly five months, the owners refused admittance, swarmed all sides and angles, and proclaimed they were working to preserve the castle's dignity and future.

And then, one day in late November, the owners just stepped aside and said, "Our castle is your castle."

This was not the wrong thing to do or say — compromise was necessary — but it's difficult to understand the months of posturing and sacrifice when the same deal could have been reached without having ever kicked out the players, without having ever missed a moment.

Compared to what they set out to do, the NBA owners changed very little of the league's structure. They saved themselves a bucketful of money — $3 billion during the life of the collective bargaining agreement — but then shared control of the castle.

Perhaps that $3 billion was sort of like an admission fee. Perhaps it's all the owners wanted all along.

Because the truth of the league's next collective bargaining agreement is that, for the average fan, very little will change.

Also for the Sixers, very little will change. From one viewpoint, they represent a major metropolitan area that should be on par with the league's wealthiest teams. But the reality is that their attendance figures — and a string of years in the red — allow them a piggy bank more equivalent to those of the league's have-nots.

Here are some changes that, were they made, could have helped the have-nots, including the Sixers:

Franchise tag. This item was reportedly on the table during the early months of negotiating. It would allow each NBA team to "franchise-tag" a specific player, who would then be unable to sign elsewhere.

Inclusion of such a provision would have allowed the Orlando Magic to franchise-tag Dwight Howard. Instead, it's likely Howard will force a trade or play out the season and become an unrestricted free agent at season's end.