Billy Hunter

National Basketball Players Association executive director Billy Hunter, president Derek Fisher and vice president, former Longhorn Maurice Evans announce the union’s intentions to decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit against the NBA, narrowing the chances of having an NBA season even further.

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

NEW YORK — NBA players delivered a resounding but risky response to one more ultimatum from NBA Commissioner David Stern: See you in court.

The players’ association rejected the league’s latest proposal for a new labor deal Monday and began disbanding, paving the way for a lawsuit that throws the season in jeopardy.

Negotiating went nowhere, so now the union is going away.

And Stern said “nuclear winter” is coming.

“We’re prepared to file this antitrust action against the NBA,” union executive director Billy Hunter said. “That’s the best situation where players can get their due process.”

And that’s a tragedy as far as Stern is concerned.

“It looks like the 2011-12 season is really in jeopardy,” Stern said in an interview aired on ESPN. “It’s just a big charade. To do it now, the union is ratcheting up I guess to see if they can scare the NBA owners or something. That’s not happening.”

Hunter said players were not prepared to agree to Stern’s ultimatum to accept the current proposal or face a worse one, saying they thought it was “extremely unfair.” And they’re aware what this battle might cost them.

“We understand the consequences of potentially missing the season; we understand the consequences that players could potentially face if things don’t go our way, but it’s a risk worth taking,” union vice president Maurice Evans said. “It’s the right move to do.”

But it’s risky.

Hunter said all players will be represented in a class-action suit against the NBA by attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and David Boies — who were on opposite sides of the NFL labor dispute, Kessler working for the players, Boies for the league.

“Mr. Kessler got his way, and we’re about to go into the nuclear winter of the NBA,” Stern told ESPN. “If I were a player ... I would be wondering what it is that Billy Hunter just did.”

The league already has filed a pre-emptive lawsuit seeking to prove the lockout is legal and contends that without a union that collectively bargained them, the players’ guaranteed contracts could legally be voided.

During oral arguments on Nov. 2, the NBA asked U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe to decide the legality of its lockout, but he was reluctant to wade into the league’s labor mess. Gardephe has yet to issue a ruling.

Two years of bargaining couldn’t produce a deal, with owners’ desires for more competitive balance clashing with players’ wishes to keep the salary cap system largely intact. The sides last met Thursday, when the league offered a revised proposal but told the players there would be no further negotiating on it.

Stern, who is a lawyer, had urged players to take the deal on the table, saying it’s the best the NBA could offer and advised that decertification is not a winning strategy.

Players ignored that warning, choosing instead to dissolve the union, giving them a chance to win several billion dollars in triple damages in an antitrust lawsuit.

“This is the best decision for the players,” union president Derek Fisher said. “I want to reiterate that point, that a lot of individual players have a lot of things personally at stake in terms of their careers and where they stand. And right now they feel it’s important — we all feel it’s important to all our players, not just the ones in this room, but our entire group — that we not only try to get a deal done for today but for the body of NBA players that will come into this league over the next decade and beyond.”

Fisher, flanked at a press conference by dozens of player representatives and superstars including Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony, said the decision was unanimous. But there were surely players throughout the league who would have preferred union leadership put the proposal to a vote of the full membership, with many ready to go back to work.

The sides still can negotiate during the legal process, so players didn’t want to write off the season just yet.

“I don’t want to make any assumptions,” union VP Keyon Dooling said. “I believe we’ll continue to try to get a deal done or let this process play out. I don’t know what to expect from this process.”

Hunter said the NBPA’s “notice of disclaimer” was filed with Stern’s office about an hour before the news conference announcing the move. Now, the NBPA is in the process of converting to a trade association as the fight shifts to the courts.

“The fact that the two biggest legal adversaries in the NFL players dispute over the NFL lockout both agree that the NBA lockout is now illegal and subject to triple damages speaks for itself,” Kessler said in an email to The Associated Press. “I am delighted to work together with David Boies on behalf of the NBA players.”

Hunter said the bargaining process had “completely broken down.” Players made numerous economic concessions and were willing to meet the owners’ demands of a 50-50 split of basketball-related income — a transfer of about $280 million annually from their feeling the league’s desires to improve competitive balance would hurt their guaranteed 57 percent under the old deal — but only if the owners met them on their system wishes.

“This deal could have been done. It should have been done,” Hunter said.

Over the weekend, Stern said he would not cancel the season this week.

Regardless, damage already has been done, in many ways.

Financially, both sides have lost hundreds of millions because of the games missed and the countless more that will be wiped out before play resumes. Team employees are losing money, and in some cases, jobs. And both the owners and players eventually must regain the loyalty of an angered fan base that wonders how the league reached this low point after such a strong 2010-11 season.

“It’s horrible,” said Ty Agee, president of the Beale Street Merchants Association in Memphis, Tenn. “This is bad. Personally, I don’t believe they will be able to fix it. This is really, really bad.”

And it was seemingly destined. Hunter said he believed years ago owners were going to lock out the players until they could force through the changes they sought. Given that, he has been criticized for not disbanding the union sooner in hopes of creating some leverage that the union never had.

The proposal rejected by the players called for a 72-game season beginning Dec. 15.

Printed on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 as: NBA announces plans to decentify, file antitrust lawsuit

NBA commissioner David Stern discusses the lockout with the media. Stern guided the NBA through its last lockout in 1998, which resulated in a shortened season of 50 games.

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

For a sport that brought in more than $4 billion dollars this season, it is hard to believe that there isn’t enough of it to go around.

But it is not how much money there is coming in; it is how teams are spending it that has players and owners at odds. Basketball team owners want a salary cap, “revenue sharing” and the ability to let players go who underperform. Players on the other hand, want to increase their stake on the team’s pay roll, and neither side is budging.

“At every players’ meeting, [the players] had 20 to 25 guys there,” Kevin Durant said while in Austin to host his basketball camp this weekend. “Owners are united, but so are we. And there are more players.”

Prior to the end of this season, players such as Durant benefitted from the collective bargaining agreement settled between the NBA and the players union in 2005. Among other things, the CBA guaranteed money for players regardless of on-court performance and it established a “soft” cap — as opposed to a “hard” cap — which did not set spending limits on players.

But the issue goes even farther down the rabbit hole.

What the owners want
According to NBA Commissioner David Stern, the league expects to lose $300 million this season after losing $300 million last season because of the agreement provisions on spending requirements. The agreement mandated that every team owner spend at least 57 percent of their gross revenue on player salaries, and it is this obligation that the league said is the cause for 22 out of 30 reporting losses this season.

Only a few teams in the league enjoy high annual profits. For owners of some underperforming or smaller market teams, where ticket sales are harder to come by, spending 57 percent of team revenue on the players is too much. The league would like that percentage set closer to 40 .

The players union has repeatedly disputed the owners’ claims that they are losing money, but Stern believes the league has been forthright.

“We’ve given [the union] our certified financial statements,” Stern said. “We’ve provided access to our tax returns, and if there’s more needed, they’ll get more. We’re very comfortable because we’ve given the players association more financial information than has ever been done in the history of sport.”

What the players want
Players union President and Los Angeles Laker, Derek Fisher, said most of the money woes are a result of poor housekeeping.

“We’ve run into situations where teams have either mismanaged spending, overpaid staff or made decisions on rosters and personnel that weren’t in their best interest — things that we’re now being asked to take the hit for,” Fisher said in October.

Executive director for the National Basketball Player’s Association, Billy Hunter, said the owners are manipulating the numbers.

“There has been ongoing debate and disagreement regarding the numbers, and we do not agree that the stated loss figures reflect an accurate portrayal of the financial health of the league,” Hunter said during the season.

Along with maintaining a majority stake in revenues, the players oppose the owners’ “hard” salary cap proposal which would establish strict spending limits on players. The NBA’s “soft” cap has a number of loop holes and exceptions that allow a team to bypass the cap.

Similar to Major League Baseball, the NBA’s soft cap allows teams to spend above the salary cap as long as they pay a luxury tax. Most basketball teams spend above the cap. Boston, New York and Los Angeles can spend more than $100 million, while Minnesota spends less than $50 million. The current soft cap is set at $58 million.

A hard cap would eliminate bidding wars between owners for star players and theoretically spread talent around the league evenly, but for players who are earning well, a hard cap means an end to guaranteed contracts which ensure payment regardless of injury or on-court performance. Hunter called the guaranteed contracts the “life-blood” of the NBA.

“We’ve had that right for years, and it’s not something we’re trying to give up,” Hunter said.

A point of agreement
The one thing both sides want to see in the next collective bargaining agreement is guaranteed revenue sharing — but for different reasons.

Small market teams strongly support revenue sharing so that big spenders such as Boston and Los Angeles play a bigger role in subsidizing teams such as Sacramento or Memphis on an all-around operational level.

Conversely, the players union wants revenue sharing to ensure that those same smaller market teams can increase player salaries across the board.

But for a real conclusion to occur, more than revenue sharing needs to be agreed upon, and soon, before any more causalities to the lockout occur. This time last year, NBA fans fixated themselves to the Lebron James free-agent-frenzy that overturned the sporting world. This year, a free agency can’t occur until an agreement is signed. Freshly drafted rookies can’t practice with their new coaches and teammates, and the summer league will also be canceled if it continues. Negotiations are stalled right now, with neither side able to concede to any of the more contentious
debates.

While no one knows when an agreement might occur, few can dispute that this lockout is going to be messy.  

Printed on 07/07/2011 as: Locked out