NBA LOCKOUT: Whos right? Players or owners?

I whole-heartedly agree with you. I side with the owners as well. People who are hating on the owners obviously don't understand the concept of "business". They clearly don't understand how the business side of the league works. When each team split revenues, its not like the owners take their share and go on a spending spree like MOST of the players do when they get theirs. The owners' share go right back into the franchise for the sake of operations.

I understand the fact that the players are the primary and main financial engine for the franchises. They are "the league". I get that. But they need to understand that even though they're rich, they still are also affected by the bad economy. The worst it gets, the less people will pay for anything NBA-related (tickets, concessions, merchandise, jerseys, etc.). The less money the team gets, in time it will be much more difficult if at possible to even pay the players their salaries. The more money the players require, the more the owners have to charge for everything to make ends meet. That's not greed on the owners' part; that simple economics. Yes, some of the owners are wrong for paying certain players big time money who shouldn't have got it. But most of the big contracts were signed in a better economy.

They should examine the market and make it clear the the biggest enemy here is not the owners or players but the economy just like with everyone else. YES!!! The rich has been effected too!!! What I would do is instead of fighting for an agreed upon deal for the next decade or so, they should make a good estimate of market conditions and agree for the 53%-47% split or 50%-50% split for like 5 years and if the market is better in five years then agree to go back to how it once was since the economy has picked back up. At least this way, the NBA can resume and everyone can make SOME kind of money here and other personnel people that aint rich can go back to work and WE ALL as fans can get back to watching basketball. The alternative for the players is like you said, pick up and MOVE to another continent and play for a fraction of what they would earn from the NBA anyway.

I disagree with your argument. First off, the owners are richer than the players. That whole "They want me to only be able to buy 1 Ferrari a month" argument doesn't really make sense when the poorest owner is richer than the wealthiest player. Your saying the players don't deserve 2 Ferrari's a month, but the owners deserve 10?

I am on the side of the players. The NBA just set attendance and television ratings records. The NBA is at its highest popularity level ever. And now the players are suppose to take a significant paycut? The players already agreed to take a pretty big paycut, and the owners still want them to take a bigger one. The owners are in financial trouble because of business decisions that they made, not because of anything the players have done.

Imagine you worked as a salesman for a car dealership. Imagine you just had a record year in sales, and the dealership as a whole just saw its biggest sales year ever. Then your boss brings you in and says "I'm sorry, I signed on the lease on the dealership property that was out of my budget, and now I can't turn a profit. You are going to have to take a 10% paycut". A little unfair, right? Considering you just had your best sales year ever.

That is what the owners are asking. Even though revenue has grown significantly over the last couple years, the owners want the players, who are 98% responsible for that revenue growth, to take a paycut. And not only that, but the players are willing to take a decent sized paycut. But the owners are being greedy, and want more.

The owners are losing money because of bad deals they make. My opinion? If the Atlanta Hawks owner is worried about turning a profit, don't give Joe Johnson $120 million. It isn't that hard. Don't give Joe Johnson $120 million, then blame him for your profit losses. What was Joe Johnson suppose to do? "I'm sorry, I don't want $120 million, just give me the $80 million I'm worth".

Players are being punished despite them doing a great job. I'm on their side.

I think that the players have a reason to be upset but i also think the owners have a point.but the fact that the players are arguing over such a small percentage of 50 or 51 percent. The players just want what they used to have and the owners cant provide that with the economy the way it is. but i think that the players are right because they are the reason the owners have all their money. but it was kind of selfish for the players to not accept the 50-50 deal so that they could do what they get PAID to do. i mean they are arguing over tons of money or tons and tons of money.

it doesnt matter whose right and 50/50 isnt the best solution. Some players work harder than coaches and vice versa. The economy is bad but my economics teacher told me celebrities are out of the economy. the economy mostly affects the middle class. every1 is greedy and Jermaine Oneal use to be the second highest paid NBA player in the league when he was on the heat.

buy a Kobe 24

Owners

owners 50/50 is good but players are too greedy and want 53/47

Players wants to play. Owners are so greedy.

Neither

NBA is the worst league in the world, too much corruption, rigged games, prima donnas and thugs

Everyone would be better off if the league folded entirely