The RP’s Weekly Web Gems: The Politics of the NBA Lockout

I write about basketball in this space every other week.  I do this because I enjoy basketball a lot–and I am extremely distraught at the prospect of not being able to enjoy my favorite sport being playing professionally over the next year.

If you haven’t heard, the NBA officially went into a lockout last week.  The Association joined the National Football League in such a move, meaning that two out of the United State’s four big sports are now not actively operating.  The NFL lockout is pretty easy to explain: there is a huge pie, and the owners don’t want to share it.  The NFL lockout will end as soon as the owners realize that losing the good will they have built since the advent of fantasy football would be an incredibly bad idea.

The NBA lockout is a little bit more complicated.  On paper, some NBA franchises are losing money.  Many NBA owners also own NHL franchises, and remember the 2004-2005 hockey lockout (which eliminated an entire season) as something that bred a more profitable, more fun league.  Lots of basketball players who also aren’t very good (relatively speaking) earn way too much money.  This all potentially points to a work stoppage which could eliminate a significant chunk of next season.  Michael Wilbon sure thinks so.

Though at first glance owners of NBA franchises seem to have many good points about the problems facing the league, many of their points don’t hold up under scrutiny.  Matthew Yglesias, a blogger for the left-leaning blog Think Progress, has actually compiled some very interesting and informative posts about the NBA which lead readers to believe that the problems of NBA owners aren’t as big as they would make you believe.  Chief among his points are that NBA owners have all increased their utility by owning an NBA team, and that the reason for financial difficulty does not rest with the players.  For his justification, read his posts.  Seriously, they are good.

Then, Deadspin uncovered some financial documents about the New Jersey Nets which really drove the point home that the NBA probably isn’t actually losing money.   It involves a ridiculous concept called the “Roster depreciation allowance.”  Again, this post is amazing for explaining how brazen NBA owners actually are and you really ought to read the whole thing.

However, despite whether or not NBA teams are losing money or not, and whether or not owners are suffering or not, they state that they are (and on paper they certainly are).  But, the reason that they are is entirely the fault of the owners themselves.  In 2004, when the Memphis Grizzlies offered a mediocre Brian Cardinal $37 million for six years, or when the Pistons offered the incredibly mediocre tandem of Charlie Villanueva and Ben Gordon $35 million and $55 million respectively, what were these men supposed to do?  Not take the money?  When businesses make bad decisions, we all know what happens–that business loses money.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing as much as it is an opportunity–an opportunity to get new leadership and make better decisions.  The NBA ought to operate on that principle–just like the rest of America does.

But it doesn’t.  Owners (who aren’t actually losing money) state that they are losing money because they make bad decisions, and then blame the players for their contracts which management offered to them.  And this is the reason why basketball might be canceled next year.  I hope not, but this is nothing but a big barrel of frustration.