NBA Salary Cap Determines the Future

A dark cloud hung over the NBA on September 23, 2010, when that post was created. The league and the player union knew that they needed to come to an agreement on the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement), or there would be a potential 2011-2012 NBA lockout. But the tone of the conversation and the intensity of coming to a conclusion was very mild, to say the least. It seemed like both sides knew something would get hammered out. Unfortunately, over the past two months, both sides have continued to go back and forth, yet still making no progress. For instance, the most hotly debated issue on the table, the "hard" or "soft" salary cap, cannot seem to come to any reasonable conclusion. Commissioner David Stern and the league want a "hard" salary cap that would disallow players to receive multi-year contracts that exceed a certain salary cap (for 2010-2011, the salary cap was $58 million). Billy Hunter, the executive director of the National Basketball Players' Association, and the players are fighting for a "soft" salary cap that defines a particular cap on salaries but one that is also open to exceptions, like the Bird and Early-Bird Exceptions.

And now two months into one of the most anticipated NBA seasons, the two parties have reached a virtual stalemate. No forward steps have been taken. When talking about the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the only thing that is different from September and November is the intensity of the talks. And this new-found intensity is partly pulling from the first deadline that faces both parties: December 15. On this date, the talks will be forced to go somewhere because both parties could agree to extend the CBA for another year, but Stern and the league aren't looking to sign on for another year of "out-of-control" salaries and "soft" salary caps. Personally and I'm sure many others agree, the league will not agree to extend the CBA on December 15. If it does, it's almost a guarantee that elite players who have expressed interest in trades, like Denver's Carmelo Anthony and New Orleans' Chris Paul, will be offered ridiculous contracts, especially after this offseason that saw teams become championship-contenders at the expense of creating more lottery-bound teams. In laymen terms, big market cities, like New York, that have no shot at winning a championship with their current roster, could exceed their salary cap and offer players like Anthony and Paul a huge sum of money that simply can't be refused. On the other hand, small-market cities don't have that kind of money at their disposal. And Stern knows of this competitive advantage that big market cities, like New York, have over smaller-market cities, like Denver and New Orleans, and to keep player-signings civil and not solely based on which city has the most money to offer, Stern is going to go to great lengths to keep a "hard" salary cap.


I'm not one to agree with many of Commissioner Stern's decisions that have shaped the NBA. I think his harsh policy on technical fouls must be diminished. I think his strict dress code is something that must be seriously reconsidered. I think the fines that he issues to some players and coaches are more biased than "situational-based". I'm not the biggest fan of Commissioner Stern; in fact, I enjoy it when he steps up to the podium for Draft Night every June in Madison Square Garden and gets boo'ed by the rugged New York faithful. But in regards to Stern's stance on "hard" salary caps, I wholeheartedly agree.

A "soft" and poorly regulated salary cap certainly gives big-market cities, like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago a competitive advantage over the smaller-market cities. Bigger city means more money, more money means better players, better players means better team, better team means better ticket sales. Keeping a "hard" salary cap is an effort to stabilize the 30 teams in the league. Stern is aware of this, and he is adamant in his position to keep it at that. There's no reason these athletes desperately need $20 million a year. A salary cap won't keep these players struggling by the penny to maintain their already luxurious lives for themselves and their families. And if Billy Hunter really cares about the basketball players, shouldn't he advocate a salary cap that, more than anything, forces his players learn how to save and invest their money instead of allowing them to garner a ridiculous amount of cash that can be mindlessly spent? Don't feed the problem, fix it!

President of the Players' Union, Derek Fisher, has already gone to certain lengths to help the players, by sending them e-mail podcasts and instruction manuals on tips to saving and investing money. New Jersey Nets guard Jordan Farmar, previous a Los Angeles Laker and a teammate of Fisher's for four years, heeds Fisher's advice and spends every penny he earns in part of a long-term budget that he's mapped out for himself. If more athletes acted like Farmar instead of Antoine Walker, who, as of November 1, is bankrupt due to gambling and ill-advised spending, a decision between a "hard" or "soft" salary cap wouldn't even be a debate.

The players have been looking out for themselves for quite some time. They want their contracts to continue to be heavily backed with millions and millions of dollars in order to maintain their lifestyles. For the majority of time since its inception, the NBA has supported the desires of these athletes, who continue to fill up stadiums and improve ratings. But the economy has dropped recently, and it's time that these players ask for less for the benefit and survival of the league. Furthermore, it's time these players, who have been regarded as spoiled and overpaid, take stock of their bank accounts and act like the adults that their birth certificates prove that they are. A couple million less won't hurt a player; a season without pay (due to a lockout) will.


- Leather Head