NBA vetoes a trade: exposes the protection in place for large corporations

[superboyac]

I don't know if any of you are following the fiasco happening in the NBA right now.  The NBA vetoed a trade that would have sent arguably the leagues best point guard to the Los Angeles Lakers (not arguably the most successful and prized NBA franchise in history).  In the three team trade, the New Orleans Hornets would have gotten some really good players, and a third team was involved.  All in all, in basketball terms, the trade was good, all parties were satisfied.

For the first time ever, the league vetoed the trade.  No reason has been given.  To make things worse, New Orleans was struggling financially last year, and instead of closing up shop, the NBA stepped in and purchased it.  So for the first time in history, the league owns one of the teams.  And now the league blocked the trade.  Makes you wonder what's going on.

The bottom line is this:  all the millionaires and billionaires have gotten used to having their profits GUARANTEED.  This is killing any opportunities we have in this country as middle or low class citizens.  They have no guarantees for anything, financially.  So all these rules, copyrights, marketing techniques, media hype, etc...it's all put in place by the people who can pay for them (the rich corporations) to make sure their profits are guaranteed.  And can anyone else do the same?  Nope.

So there's a big stink about this now.  Players are now restricted in movement, a right fought for and won by Oscar Robertson decades ago.  The term "slaves" is being thrown around, and it's got a point.  Granted they are multi-million dollar slaves, the idea is present.

This is not hopeful for those who aren't already extremely successful.  We're feeling the burden of scrapping for every penny while the fat cats are being gauranteed more and more profits as each day goes by.  Every time you try to do something to help your cause in life, pay attention to all the legal jargon and rules that get thrown across your path to slow you down, all the forms you have to fill out, all the "extra" commitments made in terms of contracts and monthly payments, all the money you have to dish out BEFORE you even try to do anything.  Oh, you found some like-minded friends, who are intelligent and creative, and you guys want to make your way in the world?  Good luck..the opportunity is not there, and you will probably get beaten down along the way if you try.  That's exactly what has happened to these superstar atheltes in the NBA.  But what it means for us normal folk is not positive either.

There are those who don't believe that any of this is happening because there are no statistics proving it for them, or you can't see it in the media.  In these articles we read every day with advertisements plastered all over the place, you don't know where the article begins and where the ad ends.  heck, the article authors are probably trying to just churn out conent because they need every penny they can get, and it's not about quality, it's about quantity.  All of this is killing our opportunities.

Most people have to scrap for every single cent they get.  Yet with one click of a button, you send thousands of dollars each month directly into the financial system (mortgage payments is what I'm referring to here) and the financial system proceeds to spread that money to a lot of extremely wealthy people who's "skill" and creativity is only in coming up with new and better ways to guarantee profits for them in business...when the whole idea of the business ecosystem is that profits are not guaranteed but dicatated by the market, etc. 

Or maybe that isn't how business works.  Maybe profits ARE guaranteed.  Are YOUR profit guaranteed?  No.  So who?  Good question.  Can i start a business and guarantee profits before I commit to it?  No.  So who?  Seems like a pretty nice world to be in.  I wonder how we can get there?  Sigh...

[eleman]

So all these rules, copyrights, marketing techniques, media hype, etc...it's all put in place by the people who can pay for them (the rich corporations) to make sure their profits are guaranteed.  And can anyone else do the same?  Nope.

It's refreshing to see that people are waking up to the fact that intellectual property rights are just a way to keep means of production under the capital's control. Though Marx did not see that coming, the idea resembles what marxism would stand out against in the 21st century.

p.s.: Minor edit for grammar.

[Renegade]

So all these rules, copyrights, marketing techniques, media hype, etc...it's all put in place by the people who can pay for them (the rich corporations) to make sure their profits are guaranteed.  And can anyone else do the same?  Nope.

It's refreshing to see that people are waking up to the fact that intellectual property rights are just a means to keep means of production under the capital's control. Though Marx did not see that coming, the idea resembles what marxism would stand out against in the 21st century.

+1

The current legal system is horribly biased in favour of concentrated capital as well.

Here's an example:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=monsanto+sues+farmers+cross+pollination

In what reality is that fair? If anything, Monsanto should be sued, or better yet, charged with war crimes for waging bio-warfare.

But farmers simply can't afford the legal fees to protect against bogus IP lawsuits. So, rather than lose everything as a vampiric legal system sucks them dry, they settle out of court.

Hungary didn't take a very good view of Monsanto infecting their country: http://naturalsociety.com/hungary-destroys-all-monsanto-gmo-corn-fields/

[wraith808]

I don't get where this trade would hurt the NBA?  What rationale could they have that would be self-serving?

[Paul Keith]

I don't really get the analogy.

I get the nobility of the analogy but replay the controversies and conspiracies of the last years and you will hear many criticize Stern and LA for doing the Pau-Kwame trade (resulting in several championships) which in turn justified the Lebron trade whose critics end up justifying the Boston trade.

Plus Paul is not really anymore different than people earlier in the lock-out worrying about Dwight being another Shaq for LA. (It's what set up all the silly rules in the first place. This worry about super teams and then this type of deals happening where teams end up having super teams anyway.)

On top of this, Stern is in a midst of losing control of the rules. No thanks to delivering a washed down basketball product and trying to manufacture Lebron which led to things like the Decision. There's also been a tampering charge against two teams contacting Dwight. A veto is not really that much out of order. This wasn't some major game trading change except that the league finally tried to be more vocal against big market teams holding more leverage. Worst case scenario, it's a slippery slope.

The bottomline is really a stretch. In the end, this is a league. You don't like the rules, don't be part of the league. You want to sidestep competition and acquire a major player to immediately resurrect the notability of your team, cheat the system but don't be surprised if things like this occur. It doesn't have anything to do with low class citizens seeing as both players and owners are bonafide rich. It doesn't have anything to do with slavery seeing as the player restriction is restricted only to teams within the league. Neither the Hornets or LA suffer heavily from this either. Lakers have been what? Champions and still are able to renegotiate for Paul. Hornets don't suddenly become the Red Auerbach Boston Celtics if they keep Paul.

It's really not good to hold an argument on the basis of guaranteed profits when a league has just nearly been/is still part of a lock-out. Especially issues such as this that only become rant-worthy because it's the NBA and it's not some lesser known sports league/sports controversy.

[Renegade]

Here's the thing... Professional sports operate outside of the law in many ways.

Suppose Stephen and I both work for IBM. We then decide to bet on whether IBM or HP will have a better fiscal 2011 EBIT. This is not illegal. If we were in the NBA or NFL, it would be. How the hell is that "rule of law"?

Now, suppose Stephen decides to go work for Oracle and I decide to go work for HP. And some other organization blocks me from working for HP when HP clearly wants to hire me. WTF? Seriously?

Stephen has a point there.

[40hz]

Despite being businesses, professional sports are still considered "private associations" which is why they're also sometimes referred to as "sports clubs."

The rules and laws governing such associations have a few quirks and wrinkles in them that don't make them work quite the same way as what would be considered a simple business.

[Renegade]

Despite being businesses, professional sports are still considered "private associations" which is why they're also sometimes referred to as "sports clubs."

The rules and laws governing such associations have a few quirks and wrinkles in them that don't make them work quite the same way as what would be considered a simple business.

Ahem...

All animals are equal, except that some animals are more equal than others...

Like I said... So much for the rule of law.

[Paul Keith]

Here's the thing... Professional sports operate outside of the law in many ways.

Suppose Stephen and I both work for IBM. We then decide to bet on whether IBM or HP will have a better fiscal 2011 EBIT. This is not illegal. If we were in the NBA or NFL, it would be. How the hell is that "rule of law"?

Now, suppose Stephen decides to go work for Oracle and I decide to go work for HP. And some other organization blocks me from working for HP when HP clearly wants to hire me. WTF? Seriously?

Stephen has a point there.

This appeal towards the law is IMO the very same catalyst for why the law is also broken/has been broken by more troublesome and confusing laws.

To uphold just laws, it's not about which entity operates outside of it but on what those actions entail.

The problem with this scenario is it's just not that applicable of an analogy. It's seen by your counter analogies and it's seen by the over-reaction of stretching it towards professional sports as if this wasn't a trade but the NBA literally telling Chris Paul his contract is being changed without his permission. That's not the case.

LA can still renegotiate for Paul. This "version" of the trade is vetoed. Not the entire trade concept.

If the government or lawyers block you from working for HP because of some technicality like immigration problems, they can.

Whether they are in the right or wrong, the point is they can impose that because you chose to live in the vacuum where people have given up their power to the almighty government of "country X". It's the same way with the NBA (where teams all play for one popular "league") only LA has so many hail mary trades thrown at them, this is nowhere near an abuse. Not to the level of suddenly equating this with all of professional sports or equating this with how the rich takes advantage of the poor and powerless.

Similarly, whatever NO gets by keeping Paul - it has never really made them over the top unless they have another trade happening barring the over-achievement Pauls Hornets have shown throughout their careers. Over-achievements which haven't even resulted in a championship yet anyway.

Plus, a Paul trade can still happen and Paul if he really wants to leave can leave. Only he has to leave the NBA. No more different than your boss can veto a branch move "within" a company. You can leave for HP but within the company the boss has a right to block your attempt to move to the board of directors. The only reason the NBA doesn't come off this way is because it's mainstream and with that comes size of angry over-reactive fanbase and size of departments that literally branch out to full blown team ownership, over-paid player contracts and every other aspect size of that magnitude entails. Size that creates the illusion that teams are more independent than they are unless an event like this actually happens.

Another thing with this operating outside the law issue: The NBA is not an illegal business nor is it a 3rd Party. Sure, because of it's size, you have owners who want to break the law by tampering or refs who want to earn an extra chunk of cash by ruining the integrity of the sport or spoiled players who worsen these lockouts because they and their agents seek the big payload when they are already living in the age of huge contracts but they do not operate outside of the law. It's what fuels the overreaction to the veto. The veto was done "within" the right of the NBA to do so as allowed for the law. If it was really outside of the law, the whole league would have been arrested, detained, destroyed. Zero NBA. A more apt analogy would be a parent's right to drag their underage offspring away from any type of party they deem dangerous. Is it always just? Is it always fair? No. But it's sure as hell not slavery or parents 100% wanting guaranteed profits from having a child that didn't risk going to jail and ending up have a poorer future with less cash to subsidize them when they are retired.

Finally, a trade to LA does not make all animals equal. The rest of the teams have suffered from LA constantly winning championships because of blockbuster trades. It was never equal to begin with and it never will and it has only gotten worse. The rule of law "fakes" these attempts which is why you have watered down teams. To then claim that a counter-reaction to the failure of the rules is suddenly proof that the law has failed? That's ass backwards. That reeks of over-reaction. This is a sport folks. Not government wars. Not secret wall street meetings. Not even a company blocking you (the working Stephen who finally attracted a better job at another place) from reaching your dreams. This is purely a battle between rich people and those who worship and pay to make rich people argue on these things for the sake of a bigger paycheck in the guise of competition. It doesn't mean this issue may not be worth fighting for but don't dirty the issue and make it to be something it isn't. Even as a basketball fan, I already have to stomach the faux attempt of a new Boston-Laker rivalry that never really was there because both Boston and LA could attract superstar trades because of their team's prestige. I already have to stomach the idea of Lebron winning not 1, not 2, not 3 championships in the future because of the Decision. The last thing any basketball fan needs is to have more legacies by legends be further tarnished and hijacked by an event that's really only notable in basketball and not in general.

Edit: Also, I think it's worth emphasizing that pulling out of a trade which LA has done (only read about it now) is different from being blocked/banned from pursuing an action. A boss can demotivate me to leave the company by offering a higher paycheck to nowhere's ville. One that completely gives zero benefit for my long term future worse than whatever the Lakers have to deal right now and if I give in to the offer, he's not doing anything against the law.

[Renegade]

I'm not sure if I'm clear about what's going on now...

3 teams organize a trade and agree on it.

The league steps in and vetoes it.

Is that right?

If it is right, then it seems like the league is clearly overstepping their bounds as an officiating organization.

It seems to me like Dolby and Fraunhofer want to trade a couple employees, then MPEG-LA comes out and says no. Well, not quite exactly like that, but close enough.

Am I missing something? Do teams not have the right to hire their own employees?


FYI - I don't follow professional sports at all. I am relatively ignorant about whatever is going on in that world. To me, teams seem to be companies, while the "league" itself is also another company that acts basically to administer the season, etc. etc.

[40hz]

All animals are equal, except that some animals are more equal than others...

Pretty much.

Like I said, when it comes to 'voluntary' associations and leagues, the rules are what you agreed to when you joined. As long as there's not a violation of public safety laws, you can get away with just about anything in the US. Same goes for closed-shop labor unions, fraternal organizations, churches and so-called 'faith-based' organizations, etc.

Not to say those rules will hold up in court. But judges usually cut private associations a lot of slack when it comes to that. And most associations have some broad "for the good of the league" clause that allows for discretionary actions.

I think, in the end, this will be a tempest in a teacup and end with the team owners and players getting their way.

[Renegade]

Ok, here's the thing that I still have trouble with... to clarify...

Suppose McDonald's decides to create a McDonald's organization and people can join. Now, those are the only people that can enjoy the wonderful privilege of flipping burgers. And they can be compensated for their time at the wonderful rate of $1.00 per day. (Or whatever --- I chose an insane number because it's essentially irrelevant.)

Now, since it's an organization like the NBA or a church or whatever, don't they get the same leeway?

Seems like too much of a scam and way far outside the spirit of labour laws.

But at the core, they are the same thing...

I just can't get past the rule of law.

[wraith808]

Now, suppose Stephen decides to go work for Oracle and I decide to go work for HP. And some other organization blocks me from working for HP when HP clearly wants to hire me. WTF? Seriously?

*cough* SEC *cough*

[Paul Keith]

Ok, here's the thing that I still have trouble with... to clarify...

Suppose McDonald's decides to create a McDonald's organization and people can join. Now, those are the only people that can enjoy the wonderful privilege of flipping burgers. And they can be compensated for their time at the wonderful rate of $1.00 per day. (Or whatever --- I chose an insane number because it's essentially irrelevant.)

Now, since it's an organization like the NBA or a church or whatever, don't they get the same leeway?

Seems like too much of a scam and way far outside the spirit of labour laws.

But at the core, they are the same thing...

I just can't get past the rule of law.

No, the core is vastly different because of the size. The rule of law accounts for the CIA doesn't it? It's the same here only for consumers.

Size has a lot to do with the complexity. Context also.

Far as size goes, people within an organization may have smaller less powerful entities tied to a salary where all the leverage goes to whoever is on top.

The NBA is so huge and it is a sports league so it's not just a corporation but a mixture of businesses within businesses.  Most of those people not really victims except in the eyes of whatever hardcore fanbase can get away with painting as a meme.

In the context of offiicating: this is the LA Lakers. It's like a bunch of people within Enron only what Enron actually did was illegal and unfair to everyone concerned within and external to the company with no clear sight of benefitting anyone except the entity that is Enron.

In the case with the NBA, if Paul goes to the Lakers, the NBA not only profits but they resurrect interest in one of their big market teams. Interest that was already there (and arguably at it's peak compared to ALL other teams) unlike the New York Knicks who had to acquire Amare Stoudemire and was on a slump for years. In fact the only time it waned was because of the players themselves in the last NBA Finals.

If Paul stays at NO, chances are he still gets traded elsewhere because NO simply can't compete. Even if he stays, NO still is nowhere near a title. It is by far less worse than fairer and more "according to the rules" trade such as what happened with Miami and LA. Trades that only seem fair because there was no paper trail left behind of any tampering as these two major teams have wisened up after the Joe Smith fiasco.

It's why I'm against such analogies. It's so important to know which NBA team is vetoing in this case because if you're not, you will severely underestimate the delusion hardcore fanbase would go to attach whatever extremities they can to make a situation look worse than it is in the name of making their already superior (and borderline unfairly built) team become even more superior. This is not to say the trade is unfairly leaning towards LA but believe me with the "superstar" player actually being moved to LA, you can hook enough fans into thinking that they are getting a superior deal yet again and fuel more arguments.

...and just so that it can't be said that I'm attempting to dodge the core:

The core is years in the making. This is again the problem with laws. Too many appealing to the rule, not many appealing to the right.

The core was that teams complained of "super" teams. The making of Bird's Celtics and Magic's LA was considered unfair.

Whether they were so unfair that they warranted a rule or not, the point was this was the most exciting point of the NBA and resurrected interest in it.

Then years down the line, post-Jordan, there was both a need (actually a want by fans and greedy league officials) for the next Jordan and a need (actually a want by teams who want to win without care for competition) for a super team that retained the interest of Jordan's peak years.

Here's where the conflict of interest started to unravel. Teams wanted to bypass the rules that keep them from being as super a team as possible. Yet they have players that aren't as good as Jordan though evolved much better in skills/athleticism and talent but without the heart and domination that defined Jordan.

Then you have players wanting more and more lucrative contracts. A product of the false marketing in which the core was that the league severely desired to fulfill a "guaranteed Jordan peak years way of profits".

That right there is the core but the size and the elements of powerful people involve means the rule of law is insufficient if not deficient at maintaining any semblance of the "better" old days. (I don't say good because it's not like it was peaches and pie during those years.)

The product got worse. The rulers got worse. Teams got greedier.

This created a culture where superstar trade decisions after superstar trade decisions occured so frequently and somewhat unfairly that even though the fanbase of those teams cheered for it, deep down the overall fanbase lost a lot of their interest in the actual teams as legitimacy of competition lost it's luster.

Meanwhile teams kept on stretching the ways they can build super teams "within the restricted rules". LA being a major market meant they hold a lot of leverage. It didn't hurt that they had arguably the only next Jordan player to have won several championships thanks to a combination of good management and again that leverage of being a big market. The combination which resulted not only in Shaq but to the point of trading Gasol-Kwame. A trade that jump start all these other teams desiring to tamper and create super teams to counter this new generation of bypassing fairness within the rule of law.

Such a culture creates chaos and as the NBA rulers/officiators try to maintain controls, try to keep lock-outs from happening, try to satisfy fans who delude themselves that every time LA wins it's not because of a team combining the elements of creating a super team and going against watered down teams ...the result is you have crazy decisions like this veto that sometimes backfire, sometimes get ignored or sometimes have fans reeling about on what is really fair or what's not. All while the rich get richer. Even being arguably richer than when the best players were winning championships and actually dominating the league without demanding for severe (even by the standards of the past) lopsided trades except for Jordan of course who is a special case that both dominated but also marketed himself while showing everyone that the hype was fully warranted. That latter was a special case but as special as it was, it was also the pre-emptive setup that created this culture. And no, I'm not trying to make the issue sound complicated. This is the core. You want to make slightly more legit analogies, make an analogy that considers this situation not some current events social whining that sound only legitimate if you haven't been following sports news. This isn't an issue of Joe Schmoe blue collar/white collar worker not being able to go to work on a place he wants. This isn't about animals chained to posts. Worst case scenario, the trade gets blocked, and a championship contending team gets to prove that they are a legit championship contending team by settling on their current roster. In fact if this so called team wins the championship again and the Paul trade doesn't really do anything, then all it is was a good off-season of news while (most) fans do a double take and thank the NBA for doing the veto.

[superboyac]

Bravo Paul!  Great post.  You sure are in tune with the NBA!  A lot of food for thought there, even as the Laker fan that I am.  Ever from an unbiased perspective, this is not good for the NBA.  You are right, this is partly a lingering effect of MJ's retirement in the 90's and the NBA struggling to find his replacement. 

What's most disturbing about all of this is that I think this is going to make watching basketball far less interesting.  The talent is too diluted, too many games nobody cares about.  basically, people will tune in for the big hype games that come around every few months, like the christmas game, but overall, interest will go down significantly.  I think a lot of teams should just shut down.  If it's not good business to own an NBA team, why do it?  Why force a bad, unprofitable team into the mix, and then deal with all the side-effects?  If the general public is more interested in LA, NY, Boston, etc. then what's wrong with just having those teams?  Let the market dictate who gets to have a team.  The benefit of that is that the product will be better also.  More concentrated talent, better games, even the regular season daily games would be way more exciting.  But I suppose that is too much common sense...it's not complicated enough.

[superboyac]

All animals are equal, except that some animals are more equal than others...

Pretty much.

Like I said, when it comes to 'voluntary' associations and leagues, the rules are what you agreed to when you joined. As long as there's not a violation of public safety laws, you can get away with just about anything in the US. Same goes for closed-shop labor unions, fraternal organizations, churches and so-called 'faith-based' organizations, etc.

Not to say those rules will hold up in court. But judges usually cut private associations a lot of slack when it comes to that. And most associations have some broad "for the good of the league" clause that allows for discretionary actions.

I think, in the end, this will be a tempest in a teacup and end with the team owners and players getting their way.

Do you think that's true?  I'm always am over-paranoid about stuff and scared that I can't do anything for fear of offending someone, getting sued, etc.  I'd like to get a better gauge on how paranoid I am vs. how paranoid I should be.

[Renegade]

So, the NBA and professional sports teams in general are a special case that deserve (somehow) to operate outside of the rule of law? Or should I just drop the rule of law thing? (Just asking.)

I can see how building super teams destroys the game, and how it's desirable to avoid that for the sake of better entertainment.

It sounds like an anti-trust issue or monopolizing all the good players.

Still, at the end of the day, it's just a game. There is nothing of importance that hangs in the balance. (Well, no more important than if all the top porn stars suddenly moved to Vivid, leaving the other studios with 2nd tier porn stars.)

Meh... Dunno. I suppose that I just have a hard time having any respect for professional sports. To me, it's no different than professional wrestling - it's just entertainment. So I have a hard time when people start talking about "fairness" or "ethics" in relation to professional sports. I suppose that at one time in the distant past, it used to be about sport, but now... I can't see past the commercialism of it all. It's simply blinding for me.


I'm still not really clear on why it's ok for an organization to restrict employment opportunities for someone with another business though. Sure, they aren't "victims", but still... Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. Dunno. I can see why it makes it better entertainment, but that just seems like equally rigging the game from the other end of the spectrum. Either way, you're rigging the game and altering the odds.

[zridling]

Obvious question coming: Wouldn't contraction cure this entire situation?

Baseball certainly could use it.

[Paul Keith]

Speaking of insane coincidences, this is the real sports event you should all be comparing with as far as guaranteed profits go: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/12/12/2631525/alistair-overeem-receives-conditional-license-to-face-brock-lesnar-at

Notice the key word "conditional" license?

This just occured in a UStream a while ago.

Fighter dodged a surprise steroid test by leaving the States to take care of his sick mother two days later.

NSAC stream happens where they talked to Fighter and the fighter basically only have two reasons:

1) He had incompetent managers/assistants who had never dealt with steroid testing procedures before hence the result of a wrong sample days later.

2) He had not received the news of the surprise test before he acquired a ticket.

In that stream, the NSAC people basically admitted that they have no idea when the fighter changed from LHW to HW. They questioned whether his scar came from steroid use. They talked about putting e-mail in all their forms.

Basically everything fishy that could happen, occurred. Why the conditional license? Because this was a big fight. They didn't even verify the date of the ticket acquisition. Literally taking Fighter's statement as truth on the sole pedestal that he said he acquired a plane ticket two days ago on the phone.

This is the difference between professional sports and professional wrestling. Employee safety. Rule enforcement.

Neither are truly entertainments on their own. It's not just a game for the fans, it's not just a game for those involved in the transactions.

It's alot like the record labels. Music is entertainment but when big money is involved, a team like LA can NEVER sit well with being any type of team other than a championship team that is at the same time exciting. Last Finals was the biggest disgrace in all Lakers history.

There's also the opposite blowback, the NBA is on the threat of a constant lockout. Basically this lockout was an extension of the lockout in the past. Translation: The NBA is in their own equivalent of a micro-Great Depression.

Such an event not only gives leverage to the owners which in turn encourages more cheating BUT it results in the rulers trying to put a foot down in any form. This is because it's professional sports. Regulations, restrictions, culture-wise it's anti-reactionary often hiding behind legislations upon legislations. Given enough size, the only reason Paul being traded is even categorized as a separate business is because it's the NBA. Go towards any smaller market professional basketball league and you'll see that teams can even barely trade because of the lack of talent.

In contrast, professional wrestling and any type of modern sports like MMA not only don't get an official commission that is tailored towards their sport but often times many people within the culture are content with not making the sport legit as is the case with the NSAC decision because it often means hurting the pockets of too many involved. (boxing being the only example I know of something that eventually went mainstream but is also alot like professional wrestling because of their structure) It is only because the UFC desires to be more of a legitimate mainstream sport that they even strive towards such things as steroid testing but that in itself does not compare to the Chris Benoit tragedy where because of constant bumps to the back of the head, the professional wrestler Benoit ends up killing his wife. On top of this, professional wrestling at the highest level is worse than professional wrestling at the indy level because the workload increases beyond human capability which leads to such things as wrestlers being addicted to painkillers, contracts being screwed like with what happened with Bret Hart and wrestler safety being compromised like with what happened with Owen Hart where it was a legitimate contract dispute that allowed the WWE to keep Owen Hart to the company despite his brother Bret wanting Owen to leave that compounded with other problems in the industry eventually led to Owen Hart dying because he was tasked to do something he was untrained to do which led to the disgusting accident that didn't even make the rulers stop the event and instead the event went on which fooled many professional wrestling fans into thinking a man who recently died in front of them was simply an act. Yet this is the highest level of professional wrestling. The odds of this happening in the NBA are slim to none. The odds of this happening in professional wrestling are at least 30% in the most conservative metric.

Leagues like the NBA are closer to exclusive sports rather than the highest level. They are only considered the highest level because they have a near monopoly of the talents. Super teams never destroyed the game. The people who in the name of competition wanted a way to dethrone better teams demanded super teams to be limited in the hopes that they can compete so they set up not so good rules which caused teams to be in the current predicament among other factors.

There's no anti-trust issue or monopoly in sports because that's the point of GMs competing with each other to begin with. The problem is smart tampering that leaves no paperwork which is what is used to create a super team within the current set of rules which combined by the lack of appeal of those teams meant it was easy to convince players to move towards certain cities.

I'm really not even a novice on this topic. Like many of you, I follow sports events I like. I read up on the forums. The thing is, and I do not say this as an insult towards you Renegade, you have to at least have an inkling of the sports and the terms you're referring to.

By equating professional wrestling with professional basketball (particularly this situation) for example, it's like you're saying you have a hard time respecting marijuana because it and cocaine are both illegal drugs. People fucking get addicted, died and just flat out have their hard work destroyed in professional wrestling in THE "most" unprofessional manner. Professional wrestling is literally a death trap in the sense that the better you are, the worse off you get as the best organization is LITERALLY the worst organization among all the organizations you can move to. The sole reason people go there is the same reason great foreign directors move to Hollywood only to be ignored/make crappy movies...only...again...people intentionally die!. Professional wrestling will never ever be the same as professional sports especially basketball at this point in time.

[CWuestefeld]

I really can't fathom what the complaint is here.

First, this has nothing to do with rich folks screwing the little guys. It's a completely private transaction. There aren't lobbyists here jockeying for favors to be enacted, creating regulations that each of us will be bound by. These are a group of entities that entered into a contractual agreement with a franchising body. In order to participate as a franchise, one must agree to work by the rules. That's all there is to it.

There is no element of force here, nobody is colluding or conspiring to the detriment of the man in the street -- indeed, that hypothetical man is completely unaffected by what has happened. The fact that you don't like how it affects the product -- the games of basketball championship -- is for them to decide. You might as well complain that McDonald's doesn't let its franchisees wear pink uniforms.

Are you looking for someone to be vetting all private contracts, and rejecting any that might encroach on the sporting entertainment enjoyment of the public?

The analogy with IBM and Oracle doesn't hold water. It's perfectly normal for someone becoming an employee of company X to sign a non-compete agreement as part of the terms of being hired. This prevents that person from going to work for Y or Z if they should leave X. None of us *want* to sign such an agreement, but it ought to be perfectly understandable why X would want you to do so. And you're free to find a job elsewhere if X's terms of employment don't sit well with you.

[superboyac]

CW, you say that nobody is colluding.  How do you know that?  You know about as much as anyone else on the outside, which is nothing.  All you are saying is that you think nobody is colluding or that you like to believe that nobody is colluding.  But you don't know, I don't know.

But that's the problem.  Nobody knows, but all the signs point to something shady.  This is what's going on in a lot of big businesses right now.  The public is becoming a little more aware of these things, we're entering some kind of different era, something like a new sort of enlightenment era.  At least that's what it seems like.

[CWuestefeld]

But you don't know, I don't know.

Frankly, it's none of your business. The NBA can run its organization the way they want (short of fraud, and violating other laws). The fact that they have veto power over franchisees' actions is none of your concern. If you don't like the sport that results, don't watch basketball games anymore. You have no inherent right to a professional basketball league that's run according to your desires.

[superboyac]

But you don't know, I don't know.

Frankly, it's none of your business. The NBA can run its organization the way they want (short of fraud, and violating other laws). The fact that they have veto power over franchisees' actions is none of your concern. If you don't like the sport that results, don't watch basketball games anymore. You have no inherent right to a professional basketball league that's run according to your desires.

I don't quite understand your attitude.  Are you saying that I can't think about or question things that aren't "my business"?  I'm questioning the disturbing trend of corporations getting used to the idea of guaranteed profits.  Can you or I get guaranteed profits the way that most of the big companies due, whether they are financial corps, NBA, etc.?  No.  So that's how it's my business.

The "frankly, it's none of your business" comment is a pretty offensive thing to say to someone, especially in a discussion forum.  That's what an authority says to somebody when they don't want to answer a question, which is their right.  But why you would take that stance in their place doesn't make sense to me.  I mean, with that attitude, nothing is your business.  Don't have a discussion forum, don't talk about news, only speak about things that pertains directly to you.  And I don't mean to attack you personally (we're all friends here)...but this is the kind of attitude that I have been struggling against lately.  It's like everyone is telling me to not question things and just go about your way.  That's cool, that's wise...I like that.  But you can't help noticing things eventually, and their implications down the road.

And as far as who's business it is, it's absolutely false that they are all compartmentalized.  The economy is so global now that most large businesses are directly or indirectly tied to you in a far more important way that most people think.  Unless you rent, pay no taxes, and have no investments, you can be sure that you're money (and as a result your time and energy) is being taken advantage of in ways you would not like by people you'll never know about.

But again, there are two camps here.  Those who question this stuff and are disturbed by it, and those who are ok by it.  Neither is right or wrong, but it is interesting.

[40hz]

The "frankly, it's none of your business" comment is a pretty offensive thing to say to someone, especially in a discussion forum.  That's what an authority says to somebody when they don't want to answer a question, which is their right.  But why you would take that stance in their place doesn't make sense to me.  I mean, with that attitude, nothing is your business.  Don't have a discussion forum, don't talk about news, only speak about things that pertains directly to you.

Agree 100% - both on the point of forum rudeness and the deeper issue mentioned.

"None of your business" has always been the knee-jerk response of authority challenged.

A many the problems and injustices we suffer with today are a direct result of far too many people minding their "own" business and remaining uninvolved for far too long.

That's a form of learned helplessness best avoided.

[wraith808]

The "frankly, it's none of your business" comment is a pretty offensive thing to say to someone, especially in a discussion forum.  That's what an authority says to somebody when they don't want to answer a question, which is their right.  But why you would take that stance in their place doesn't make sense to me.  I mean, with that attitude, nothing is your business.  Don't have a discussion forum, don't talk about news, only speak about things that pertains directly to you.

Agree 100% - both on the point of forum rudeness and the deeper issue mentioned.

"None of your business" has always been the knee-jerk response of authority challenged.

I don't think the "None of your Business" was rude in the slightest.  It wasn't directed at you as in a 'keep out of my business' but more of a 'it's not the public's business how a private sector is run.'

A many the problems and injustices we suffer with today are a direct result of far too many people minding their "own" business and remaining uninvolved for far too long.

And on the other foot, I think that the 'everything is my business' approach is also a source of many of the injustices we suffer with today.  From 'they're not raising their children right' to 'they have something that I don't', it smacks of jealousy and entitlement in a lot of cases.  A more reasoned approach is the best, i.e. know which fights are actually yours to fight.