"Instead, independent estimates of the N.B.A. financial condition reflect a league that has grown at a somewhat tepid rate compared to other sports, and which has an uneven distribution of revenues between teams — but which is fundamentally a healthy and profitable business. In addition, it is not clear that growth in player salaries, which has been modest compared to other sports and which is strictly pegged to league revenue, is responsible for the league’s difficulties."
"The league’s primary expense is player salaries. They have followed a nearly identical trajectory to league revenues, having grown at a 24 percent rate over 10 years, but with growth having flattened out since the recession. This is not a coincidence: under the league’s current collective bargaining agreement, player salaries are strictly tied to league revenues. In fact, because of a little-known provision in the labor agreement, players must return a portion of their salaries if they exceed 57 percent of league revenues, as has happened in several recent seasons. As I will discuss at more length later, the portion of revenues earned by N.B.A. players is similar to that of the other major sports leagues and has been stable over the past decade."
"In some ways, the N.B.A.’s present condition closely resembles that of Major League baseball before its 1994-95 strike. Baseball was still profitable as a whole in advance of the strike, but about one-third of its teams had lost money in 1993, according to Forbes, while just four teams accounted for almost half of all league profits.
The third reason for skepticism: the N.B.A.’s data has not been made public, although it has been shared with the players’ union. If the league expects their figures to be viewed credibly, they should open up their books to journalists, economists and fans."
Click here to read the article at nytimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment