Shut Up and Dribble: The 7% that could save the NBA or could it

With more than 17 or so months until the NBA collective bargaining brings the players' union and the owners together could be the cause of a lockout both sides have time ~~to fight over money~~ to talk gracefully discuss the financial future of the NBA. According to Billy Hunter, the executive director of the player's union, the two sides are far from reaching an agreement. It's a classic fight over money, both sides want it and neither wants to give it up.

One of the issues is who should get more of the basketball related revenue: the players or the owners? Currently, the players get 57% of the revenue. With the economic crappiness right now, most team owners are losing money. The NBA is suggesting a fairer split, 50-50 possible. I'm not sure how much the extra 7% will help, but I'm guessing that 7% is a large sum of money.

Let's think about this...

The players play the games. It's the player's talents bringing in fans and merchandise revenue. The players risk their health, present and future, in order to compete and entertain.

The owners own the teams and the organizations that own the rights to the players. The owners finance the team's expenses. The owners are responsible for everything except play the games.

Who deserves more of the revenue, the players or the owners?

Most of the leverage previously held by the players has been taken during prior negotiations. This 7% might be the only true leverage the players hold. If this is the case, hold onto it even if a lockout is the result.

Player's salaries have become outrageously high, increasingly to unproven players. That makes no sense at all, but what do I know?

I can understand paying Kobe, Lebron, Tim Duncan, and a handful of others who are on the top tier in NBA millions because they have proven they can win (well, Lebron hasn't won a championship but he sure does bring lots of people to the arena). Maybe the owners should be more selective of who they give these multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts. Extra psych exams, drug tests, something.

I do agree that contracts are getting beyond ridiculous. For a group of men who played for the love of the game, until they reached the NBA, getting millions should be considered an honor. But I guess if someone offered me millions to play the game I love, I would jump at the chance and get as much as I could. In a time when CEO's and VP's are making huge profits from the efforts of their employees with little regard for the employee's welfare, it is kind of refreshing to know the employees are taking in a bigger cut than the owners.

So, wouldn't the players want the owners to make a profit so they don't sell the team or worse, fold? Is the difference in the 7% really going to affect the players THAT much? Likewise, is 7% going to affect the owners that much? How much money are we talking here? How much is going to be taken from each player? If a player is making, say, 3 million a year and 2.8 million a year after the new agreement really going to break the players bank and so drastically change his families way of life? Given that he is being financially responsible, NO it won't hurt him at all in the long run. What this will do is ensure the NBA doesn't cut roster sizes or have teams fold, but for how long?

*Interesting tidbit*

Top 5 NBA players according to salary: