Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
NBA LOCKOUT ? No. 2: Who needs the money more?
My most recent question dealt with whos argument was more justified. (sorry for not putting a link, my questions & answers are available for public eyes)
I got some respectable and sound arguments that disagreed and agreed with my stand, which is that the owners are right on this.
Now my question is: Who needs the money more?
IMO, its the owners again. While players can choose to limit their consumption of the money they have, owners are at the mercy of the market, like any business. They have hundres of employees, and theyd like to keep the good ones, but if another team offers them more money, they can get locked into a price war. They have to maintain margains to stay in operation.
Some people say, "They shouldnt give bad contracts" but what really makes a contract bad? If fans come to see a particular player, whether he ranks in the top 15 or not, he makes the owners money, and they view him as an asset. A contract can "go bad" when the player declines, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a good decision at first.
Aside from the Knicks, the teams that have given the bad contracts are the small market teams- (The Rockets giving McGrady 24mil a year when he didnt practice, the Hawks giving Joe Johnson 120, Seattle giving Rashard Lewis 119, The Wizards giving Gilbert Arenas 118M, so forth and so on)
These teams overpay their star players because they feel that no NBA player who is also a celebrity demanding huge money is going to stay in a small market without a huge tradeoff. It would hurt his brand and limit his business choices while playing.
A player does not have the same value in the eyes of a fan as he does in the eyes of an owner. All we care about is how good the player is. Owners think about how many fans come to see them because of him, and how much revenue he generates for the team.
Do you think that without Chris Paul deciding to stay, anyone would even think about going to New Orleans?
The Bobcats are owned by Michael Jordan, but i bet money they wont win like Mike in this lifetime. No superstar wants to go to North Carolina
@someperson I know what you mean. Im talking relatively, obviously they dont "need" it to survive, but i think the owners "need it more" in a sense that maintaining a business is more important than maintaining a lifestyle.
@Lakers for a 3 peat: Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because it based on a premise that compares apples to oranges. A janitor in no way, unless it is a cleaning business, affects the revenue of a company. He is simple an employee, and his salary is ovehead on the books. If it is a cleaning business, he would need some basis for demanding that salary, and of necessity, one of those basis would have to be that the services he performs bring in substantially more revenue than the $250,000 he's asking for. If this basis is met, the argument is valid, and subsequently boil down to whether or not the owner wants to keep the overhead that "assures" revenue (the best janitor in the world) or release the overhead speculating that business wont signficantly decline without the person.
Netflix did that in reverse when it raised its price 60%, from $10 to $16 per month. They knew theyd lose subscribers, but they gambeled (succesfully) that not enough people would cancel, namely 60% of th
6 Answers
- Anonymous10 years agoFavorite Answer
Players
- 10 years ago
You mentioned that teams have to overpay players to get them to stay.. This is a dumb business decision. Imagine you own a small business and your janitor comes in and says "I'm leaving this company unless you pay me 250 grand a year".. You let him walk, right? Even if he is the best janitor in the world. Joe Johnson and Rashard Lewis were never worth $120 million in revenue to their teams. Not even close. But your saying it is the players fault that the owners are willing to pay that much?
- LevellLv 410 years ago
The players need the money more for sure. Mostly the guys who are making lower salaries. Every player doesn't make Lebron or Kobe money. There are many players making considerably less money and cannot find jobs elsewhere. To your Chris Paul question, I don't believe any superstar would go there without him. Unless they gave him a huge contract he couldn't refuse.
- 10 years ago
If the owners give into the played again just like they did the last time the fans are screwed.Ticket prices and all NBA merchandise goes up 30 % !Doesn't anybody care about these bad economic times.I think the players and the owners need to think more about the fans .What are they without us fans.
Source(s): The Realist - How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MaximumdvdLv 410 years ago
Who NEEDs the money more? Neither of them NEED it more. I would argue the people that work the events such as ticket sales, concessions, parking , cleaning crew, etc. need the money more than Players or Owners.
The Players are Millionaires, but he Owners are Billionaires, so if you mean who is going to feel it more, I would say the Players.
- Anonymous10 years ago
LOL at the idea of millionaires and billionaires "needing" money
Looks like you've been brainwashed pretty badly by Stern
NBA is a joke
