Kevin Durant and Mark Cuban Verbally Spar Regarding Max Contracts & Guarantees

We’re less than a week from the announcement of the new media deal and discussions about the new Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") are out in mass.  We've already heard from the movers and shakers such as Mark Cuban, LeBron and Kevin Durant regarding restructuring maximum deals and the possibility of removing guaranteed contracts.

After LeBron and Kevin Durant publicly lobbied the owners to remove maximum salaries; Cuban responded with the following:

Mark Cuban http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com

“If you give up guarantees, [i]t’s a trade-off….” “It was discussed during the lockout time among owners, but never got anywhere. So it was just one of those trial balloons. I’m not offering this as a negotiation, I’m not suggesting it, all I’m saying is that was something we discussed before, and max contracts are always big question, guarantees are always a big question. But we have two years before that’s even an issue, so no point discussing it now.”

These contrasting viewpoints have polarized much of the NBA fan base; and as such I thought I could shed a little light on the issues being discussed:

Maximum Deals.  As a direct result of explosion of contracts given to star athletes which occurred during the mid-to-late 90’s; one of the owner’s biggest wins during the lockout of 1999 was the imposition of maximum contracts.  Fresh off the megadeals signed by Shaquille O’Neal (signed seven-year, $121 million contract in 1996) and Kevin Garnett (in 1998 signed six-years, $126 million while only 21 years old) the owner’s had a legitimate reason to fear the increasing costs of superstars.  Additionally the owners had an unlikely ally here as they had the support of the vast majority of the players in the union.  These players realized that the star’s salary being capped leaves more money available for the rest of the players on the team; and because these players represent the lion’s share of the union this alliance was enough to approve the inclusion of max deals. While I am optimistic that the value of max deals will increase substantially; I doubt the influx of money will be enough to defeat those two powerful forces and totally remove max deals.

Guaranteed Contracts.  While most of us know that the bulk of NBA contracts are fully guaranteed; most of us do not seem to know why, mistakenly believing that the basis of the guarantee lies with the CBA.  The truth is the only NBA contracts mandated by the CBA to be guaranteed are those belonging to 1st round picks on their rookie deals. Any other guaranteed contract was the result of the negotiations as they exist in the current market not the CBA. Therefore any changes in the structure of contracts would be the result of a change in the market and not the CBA.

So while it was interesting to hear these powerful voices make their stances known regarding labor issues; I am not optimistic that this will result in any changes. 

NBA, I Salute You

Congratulations NBA.  In just 3 short years; the league has gone from being perceived as full of “thugs” and hemorrhaging money to having its future interests firmly secured by totally restructuring their image and taking progressive financial steps to secure a massive influx of revenue.

Image.  While no one is ready to claim that the NBA is ready to rival the NFL, the fact that ESPN/ABC and Turner sports are willing to triple the media deal with the NBA proves just how desirable the league currently is.  Players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Dwight Howard, Blake Griffin, and Chris Paul are among the most recognizable faces in sports. Don’t believe it?  Try to tune in to an hour of TV without seeing one of their commercials.   

While it can be argued that much of this is due to those respective stars and not the league, the league’s contribution cannot be denied.  The NBA’s implementation of the dress code, exile of Donald Sterling and willingness to embrace ideas other leagues have been historically tone-deal to (i.e. gambling), that have made it easier for the casual fan to accept the product. 

Influx of Revenue.  Beyond the revenue being produced by the new TV deal; the NBA has taken several steps to make the NBA a more financially healthy league.  The first and likely most significant was the CBA of 2011 which not only increased the money that the owners are entitled but also strengthened revenue sharing among the teams to ensure that cash-strapped teams have an additional stream of cash.

While the effects of the mega media deal on the CBA, salary cap, etc. are yet to be determined; the most significant development of this new deal is how expertly the NBA has navigated the tumultuous waters that permeated the league after the ugly labor battle. 

Attorney David Cornwell "NCAA Mandated That He Feed Their Families, But He Could Not Feed His Own."

by Kevin L. Davis (@EsquireSports)

Readers of this blog will remember that I have already stated my belief that the system of college athletics is broken, and it should be reformed to allow Players to be paid, although that compensation should not be paid from universities and instead Players should be eligible to receive compensation based on their likeness not actual pay.  If you haven't seen it the petition can be found here >>>>  http://esquiresports.blogspot.com/2011/06/petition-to-allow-collegiate-players-to.html.  

With the recent developments dominating the sports pages involving scandals at Ohio State University and the University of Miami, and the firings of the coach and athletic director at University of North Carolina, I felt now was a great time to reexamine the state of college sports.The quote from attorney David Cornwell in the course of representing former Ohio State Quarterback Terrelle Pryor, that I used as the title shows the hypocrisy of the amateurism rules.  

As such I decided to take Cornwell up on his call to arms on challenging "the NCAA on its 'amateurism' rules." To me this system is nothing short of an injustice, there is no justification to allow enormous amounts of money to be made for everyone involved (i.e. NCAA executives, coaches, and the university itself, etc. ); but the player.  Lets just face it, prohibiting players from profiting off their likeness is patently unfair.  

I know players do receive an education at a university for free and also receive other benefits during their time at the university which obviously have value.  However, when compared to the value lost by Players based on not being able to profit off their likeness during collegiate years, its clear that the latter is more valuable.  The large amounts of money boosters, agents, and others have shown themselves willing to spend to get in contact with these young superstars of college sports illustrates that.

So what do I suggest?  A re-writing of the rulebook totally abandoning the rules of amateurism.  That my friends may just be the only way to reestablish the integrity of college sports.

Petition to Allow Collegiate Players to Receive Compensation

By Kevin L Davis (@EsquireSports)

For those that don’t know, the NCAA has rules which require players to be amateurs to play for their universities. Because of this players lose their eligibility if they are paid in anyway for playing, including profiting off their likeness.  Yes they do get their scholarship and certain other academic benefits, but that’s it.

What this means is these players are also not allowed to receive payment from schools, AAU coaches and agents; they also can't get paid for commercials, shoe deals, aren't entitled to a share of their jersey sales, don't get paid for inclusion in video games, etc. 

To me this system is blatantly unfair.  While I don’t think the school’s themselves or the States, the funding source of public universities, should pay athletes (could you imagine supporting a tax-hike to support paying players when schools are being closed?) I think any of us who attended college for years on end would agree that the living expenses amassed during your stay there are enormous.

These costs and the restriction from making any income off a player’s celebrity status, causes the enticement of accepting illegal benefits from unsavory characters that much harder to resist.  The result of that temptation has brought proud programs like USC and Ohio State to their knees as indiscretions of players and coaches come to light.

As much as the NCAA’s leadership may disagree, I say the only proper reaction to the slew of indiscretions is to abandon their rules on amateurism.  Instead they should adopt rules similar to those proposed by Jay Bilas.  In this article >>> http://www.courtcred.com/college/item/615-jay-bilas-thinks-collegiate-players-should-get-paid.html; Bilas states his belief that the concept of amateurism is morally wrong and a product of past times that is no longer needed.

Bilas went on to say “I don't think that college athletes need to be paid by the universities but they shouldn't be restricted from realizing monetary gains from outside the universities.”  For those that don’t know as well as being an ESPN personality, Bilas is a practicing attorney who went to law school at Duke while also working there as an assistant coach.  During his 3 years coaching the Blue Devils made it to the Final Four all 3 years and won 2 national championships.

In my opinion, Bilas could not be more right.  Changing the rules as he suggested could go a long way in prevent future fiasco’s such USC or Ohio State from occurring.  Players would be able to get paid for commercials, sign shoe deals, etc. and universities would not have to worry about being shamed because of their athletic program or be forced to spend so many of their resources on ensuring that their players aren’t receiving benefits, because a compensation system would be allowed. 

In the words of President Barrack Obama, "it's time for a change."  The reason given to support keeping the requirement that a player must have amateur status to maintain eligibility in the NCAA is normally “that's the way its always been.”  Frankly this is not good enough.  When it is clearly evident that current system is broken, there is absolutely no reason why the status quo should be maintained just in the name of tradition.