Second Look

msanchez@theguidon.com

With the regular season well under way, the fact that the NBA has just come from a work stoppage isn’t something I think of when I watch the games. I’m just happy basketball is back.

The provisions of the new National Basketball Association (NBA)’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) reset its economic system and created a new revenue sharing plan that will benefit small-market owners. However, one thing that remained unchanged was the phenomenon of star players signing with large-market teams; point guard Chris Paul’s signing with the LA Clippers in mid-December sent echoes reminding the league of the creation of Miami’s “Big Three” the previous year. This was one of the issues that led to the lockout, but it was not touched on as significantly as other issues.

To further grasp the importance of all this, the resulting change in the landscape of the league in 2010 highlighted the clash of the dual set of goals of the NBA. On one hand, there is the desire for all teams to be competitive in terms of on-court success and profits. This is what the NBA owners call “competitive balance.” On the other hand, it is the desire to keep the popularity of the league growing. What is interesting here is that if star players team up, the league generates increased popularity for the “superteams” but competitive balance is sacrificed. Keeping star players spread throughout the league can minimize difference in roster depth, but this does not generate the revenue-translating hype that the “superteams” had.

Large-market teams will always have an advantage over small-market teams in terms of attracting top talent in the NBA model. It’s not just about money for building a supporting cast around star players; larger markets also provide players a lot more potential for developing their brand image as basketball players, and of course, potential for more non-basketball income.

A more punitive luxury tax system is the provision of the new CBA tackling competitive balance, and for me it is insufficient as a measure to restore it. What the tax does for teams is that it makes keeping star players, to quote Miami owner Mickey Arison, “more expensive” due to the effects of high salaries on a team’s closeness to the tax line.

Therefore, while there is change, the system is still fundamentally the same. What the new CBA says to the top players whose contracts are set to expire between now and 2017, is that although they lost money, they still wield power in free agency. The top players can still choose destinations and teammates whom they want to end up with.

From the owners’ perspective, the craziness of 2010 continuing into the decade will only bring in more off-court drama and sleepless nights. The next date that they can do anything about competitive balance is a ways off; the five years before the opt-out clause in 2017 can be used to start thinking of structural changes the NBA may have to undergo in order to improve competitive balance. As a fan however, I can’t complain about this development going forward. It just makes the NBA that more entertaining to watch.