David Stern's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

1707 Words4 Pages

A jolt of dismay and shock went through the National Basketball League (“NBA”) when NBA Commissioner David Stern blocked a trade that would have sent All-Star guard Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Lakers from the New Orleans Hornet in 2011. This decision came just moments before the end of the five month long NBA lockout due to prolonged negotiations over a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The league was in utter shock over Stern’s actions, particularly because Mr. Stern was both commissioner and acting as a team owner of the Hornets, justifying his actions as being “in the best interests of the Hornets.” A team official later stated that the block was because of “basketball reasons.” This action shed light on a very important question: …show more content…

Without a CBA, disputes from both antitrust and labor laws would likely impose overly burdensome costs upon everyone involved, from players to owners, which would in turn disrupt the system as a whole and prevent the leagues effective operation. Collective bargaining offers several important benefits and few disadvantages to NBA players . The most significant disadvantage to the players is the inability to bring antitrust claims against the owners. However, in general, the CBA grants the players many advantages they would not have if it were not for the CBA. First, without a union, a majority of players would have little leverage in negotiating with owners since they are replaceable and can have a G-league player replace them. This means the players have little power when negotiating with the owners since they are “replaceable”. Absent a few super star players (LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Steph Curry), the rest of the players are largely replaceable. If a player then refuses to play under the terms offered by the owner, he can then either sign with another team or not play in the NBA (the latter option not being a viable one since there are no other leagues that offer the same pay and level of competition). The owners knowing this have the leverage to drive the pay down for the majority of “replaceable players,” since they know it is not likely the players will walk away and join a …show more content…

The owners of teams gain from collective bargaining in many valuable ways. One positive effect of collective bargaining for the owners is that through the CBA they are able to control players on different matters from salary to player movement. The CBA also grants owners of teams in smaller markets a certain degree of parity, that in turn increases the teams popularity and make their team an attractive place for perspective players. The most significant of these bing the CBA granting the owners the ability to have a soft salary cap. Through this the the owners can protect themselves from paying massive amounts to players, because players cannot demand a larger or longer contract than the CBA allows. Through this mechanism, owners do not have to pay those huge hundred million dollar deals seen in baseball. The salary cap from the CBA also stops players’ movement from teams. They are able to do this through the NBA draft, where a team selects a player from college and that player must play for the team for three years, with fourth year options, with a designated rookie salary. If it were not for the CBA, this “manner of picking and keeping players would be untenable under antitrust law.” Additionally, without a salary cap teams with more money would outspend other teams in smaller markets and take all the talent. This effect would in turn be bigger than baseball, since in baseball if you pay a superstar

Open Document