The Big Three Sports
Economics, by J. Richard Hill and Peter A. Groothuis, “Until the 1998-1999 season, the NBA had never cancelled a game due to a labor dispute. The relationship between the NBPA and the owners seemed to be working well” (133). One of the main disputes from the owners that lead to that lockout was that unlike other sports, the NBA could not limit the amount of money spent by clubs on free agents. Clubs were allowed to disregard the salary cap, which was considered a soft cap, in order to keep superstar players that would otherwise seek more money elsewhere in the free agent market. However, the owners instead, “…overbid on other free agents to lure them away from their current teams, staying just under the cap, before negotiating with their own superstars” (Hill-Groothuis 133). So in essence, a team could not only keep their superstar free agent, but they could acquire other teams free agents and go over way over the salary cap legally. So when the union subsequently refused to rid the soft cap for a hard one (for obvious monetary reasons) the owners imposed the lockout.
On the other hand, the NBPA was discouraged surrounding the disparity between the highest paid and the lowest paid players, claiming that the gap was way too wide and sought measures to lessen the gap and benefit those at the lower end. Steps were taken to improve this gap and evidence of the progress is reported in the Hill-Groothius article that shows improvements were actually made. In 1997-98, the minimum salary was 272,500 and the maximum salary was 33, 140,000. In the 1999-2000 season, the minimum rose to 301,875 and the maximum fell to 17, 142,858 (141). This is a direct result of the Executive Director of the NBPA, Billy Hunter’s work in the 1999 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and as stated in the NBPA web-site, “…NBA players are assured of maintaining their status as the best compensated athletes in team sports over the life of the six-year deal” (www.nbpa.com).
Next, the focus will shift to Major League Baseball, whose player/management relationships prove to be much more complex. In general, the relationship between the players and the management in professional baseball is not good as the two groups appear to be divided on what is in the best interest of baseball. As of August 2002, the MLBPA unions’, as stated by George F. Will from the Topeka Capital-Journal web-site, “…primary objective is to protect the revenues of a very few very rich owners –principally, the Yankees’. The owners’ primary objective is a more egalitarian distribution of wealth” (www.cjonline.com).
The reason that the players’ union wants to support the bankroll of the larger clubs is because they feel that as the larger clubs wealth increases, their salaries will do the same. The owners however, believe that only through more evenly distributed wealth will the health of the league get better because more evenly distributed wealth will lead [next page]