NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker have a lot in common. Both are in positions of power and have a responsibility to care for their constituents. However, both are currently using this power in dishonest and deceitful ways, obfuscating their ulterior motives by painting their causes with a gilded brush. Adam Silver will face a whole new set of negotiations over the NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement with its players union in 2017, but efforts to frame the conversation have already begun. Scott Walker has become the most recent governor to sign right-to-work legislation into law, speciously championing himself as a pro-worker politician. Both of these men, and the larger Republican Party, have tried to frame the conversations about their respective issues in order to appeal to the common man -whether that is any-man in the NBA or the blue-collar worker in Madison- but ultimately are just working for themselves.
2017 is set to be a tumultuous time for the NBA. As the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) comes up for deliberation, newly elected Commissioner Adam Silver and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) are beginning to disagree on many issues, lining up 2017, the earliest year the CBA can be amended, to be either momentous or disastrous. One key issue separating the two sides is the infusion of new TV deal money into basketball related income and salary caps, an issue where the NBPA would like to see the windfall introduced all at once and where the NBA would prefer a more graduated introduction of the money, otherwise known as salary cap smoothing. Another looming debate concerns the NBA age limit; currently, players must be 19 to be in the league, which has led to players going to college for only a year and then dropping out to enter the NBA draft, but the league would like to see that age limit rise to 20 whereas the NBPA is actively trying to eliminate the age limit entirely. While the NBPA claims to look out for and act in favor of all players in the association and while the NBA is really only expected to look out for itself, surface arguments on both sides are ironically uncharacteristic, posing questions about to whom each entity serves.
Last October, the league signed a deal with ESPN and Turner that will significantly raise the amount of basketball related income (BRI) within the league and thus will proportionally raise the salary caps for teams. While the salary cap usually moves up slightly every year by a few percentage points, this extreme influx will raise BRI by over 30%, allowing teams to spend more for better players and allowing players to receive more overall. The league wants the infusion of this additional money to be over a period of some years, rather than all at once. If the money came in one large salary cap influx, this would disproportionally benefit free agents in 2016, as they would be in a position to receive that money. The NBA argues that salary cap smoothing would create a more fair distribution of the TV deal money. The NBPA, naturally wanting to see the money as soon as possible at a higher percentage of BRI, has rejected this plan, so, in the 2016-17 season, players will see a drastically inflated salary cap. However, the NBPA President and First Vice President, Chris Paul and LeBron James, are both in position to be free agents in 2016 and will directly reap the benefits of this deal, essentially reducing the possibility for future free agents and players to cash in equally on the influx of BRI. By rejecting the idea of salary cap smoothing, the NBPA has advocated mainly for the superstars of the league instead of the everyman of the NBA, an ironic role reversal where the NBA advocates for the players and the NBPA does not argue for all.
A similar situation is taking place around the idea of an age limit. Currently, basketball players face a one-and-done situation, where, because of the age limit at 19, players go to college for only a year and then drop out after March Madness to enter the NBA draft. This leads to a bizarre turnover effect for the better teams in the NCAA, like Kentucky and Kansas. Adam Silver has proposed raising the age limit to 20 years old, in order for basketball players to mature as players, become leaders on their team, and stay in college for at least two years. Silver has painted this as an effort to improve players for their own sakes, by allowing them to become NCAA stars and receive more training prior to entering the NBA, and as an effort to improve the league, by allowing NBA scouts more time to discern player ability and by guaranteeing rookies have more experience upon their entrance to the league. In fact, the league recently proposed a joint plan with NCAA to postpone the date of draft declaration in order for the current college players to make a more informed decision about declaring, a intermediary step for increasing the age limit. The NBPA, on their own volition, has decided to argue for a lowering of the age limit to 18, so some players could actually come straight out of high school. The union argues that restricting players is arbitrary and actually borderline racist. Many players would not be able to be drafted right out of high school and many teams would not want to take that risk anyway. The NBPA advocates for letting the NBA market decide who will be drafted on merit alone, rather than restricting entrance to the league with an arbitrary age limit. Again, these arguments highlight an odd role reversal in for whom these agencies are advocating. The NBA argues for improving the whole league and giving all players a longer chance to stand out, a stance seemingly advocating for the benefit of all players, while the NBPA argues to let superstars rise as quickly as possible with no limits based solely on age, an argument leaving out the concerns for the many for the concerns of the next LeBron James.
However, while the 2017 CBA discussions still loom over the NBA, nuance should not be discounted. The league advocates for salary cap smoothing as a more equitable profit sharing device, but in return it wants to lower the percentage of BRI given to salaries. Of course it does – why would it not want to keep as much money for itself? The NBPA may seem to argue for the free agents of 2016, of which LeBron James and Chris Paul are a part, but in fact it wishes to raise the percentage of BRI, an agreement that could not be reached. The NBA may push for a higher age limit seemingly for the benefit of the players, but in fact, that extra year would likely cut off a year of playing the NBA and thus help save the NBA millions in salary money by delaying any large contracts in the players’ futures. Additionally, the raised age limit would bolster the NBA D-League, bringing in more cash for the NBA overall. The NBPA seeks to lower the age limit to give future players a better chance of receiving as much money as possible while lifting arbitrary restrictions on entrance to the league (still, Silver argues that the draft is just as much of a restriction as the age limit).
So, while the NBA superficially argues for the benefit of all players and thus paints the NBPA as advocating for only the elite players, the NBA is truly still acting in favor of itself. The NBPA in order to advocate for all of its players must counter this overwhelming branding effort from the NBA, as to not undermine its ultimate efforts. As 2017 approaches, players must take a stand and expose the league for trying to hold back money from its players instead of superficially arguing for the stars of today’s game. To properly establish a CBA in 2017 that helps and protects players for years to come, the NBPA must find a way to make the more insidious, pecuniary motivations of the NBA step into the spotlight.
On a larger scale, unions and their power have diminished as right-to-work states become increasingly prevalent. Wisconsin is the most recent state to adopt right-to-work legislation, something many Republicans laud. In a similar way that the NBA speciously advocates for all of its players, Scott Walker and his party prop up the worker. They argue against “compulsory unionism” as if unions create a problem worthy of an “ism” like “racism” or “sexism”. By diminishing the power of unions under the guise of supporting all workers, Republicans hurt workers and their efforts for collective bargaining. This slow, steady drain on union influence has forced the Democrats hand, putting labor reforms on the agenda. David Madland, the director of the Center for American Progress’ American Worker project says, “Now that Republicans increasingly have become so hostile to unions, they’ve sort of forced a fight and forced progressives to evaluate what they think.” Janet Yellen, the Federal Reserve Chair, identified the decline of labor unions as a primary reason why wage growth is stagnating, and Hillary Clinton is considering a package of labor law reforms to promote collective bargaining. Even President Obama has offered his thoughts, saying “This is one of those important issues that is not just for labor union members… This is an important issue for everybody who works because if there is not a balance of power in the workplace, everybody will suffer.” Unions have been and still are a vital tool to promote worker rights. Undercutting their power, whether it be through branding like the NBA or, more alarmingly, through legislation with a façade of empowerment, will have negative consequences on workers and the economy as a whole.
2017 is set to be a tumultuous time for the NBA. Right now is a tumultuous time for unions. That needs to change.