Sources: Agents, NBPA irate over stars taking possible pay cuts

By Sean Deveney @SeanDeveney

Email RSS

Last updated on July 3, 2014 4:07pm EDT

It’s become a common theme around the NBA this summer: If you’re a star player, you should really be taking less money. You know, for the good of the team.

We’ve heard the stars of the Spurs praised for supposedly taking less than they’re worth. We’ve heard that LeBron James, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade should willingly sacrifice salary in order to revamp the Miami roster. Phil Jackson has applied subtle pressure on star forward Carmelo Anthony to take less than the full $130 million he can make to come back to New York.

Carmelo Anthony and LeBron James (AP Photo)

MORE: Source: Anthony remains undecided | LeBron will demand max deal | Anthony tops SFs

But for union officials and prominent league agents, this sounds like a terrible idea.

“Why is it that our best players should be getting less than they’re worth?” one union official told Sporting News. “We have a collective-bargaining agreement that already limits what star players can make, and limits the total amount teams can pay. We have a very tough luxury tax. And now you have teams publicly shaming their best players into a bigger cut?”

It’s a fair point. Remember, it was two years ago that the new collective bargaining agreement was negotiated, and in that deal, players agreed to drop their overall share of revenues by seven percent, from 57 to 50. That has been estimated at $350 million more per year going to the owners, which, over the life of the 10-year agreement, would be $3.5 billion.

The owners won big in that arena. They’re preparing to win big in the new television deal, with negotiations already underway. They’re still certain that the Clippers will fetch the $2 billion Steve Ballmer has agreed to pay, once all Donald Sterling legal matters are cleared up. These are heady days for league owners.

So, is it now the responsibility to James and Anthony to ensure that their teams’ owners don’t get hit with too stiff a luxury-tax penalty?

That, a source told Sporting News, is one of the reasons why James reversed course and now reportedly would like to get his maximum payday. He is the best player in the league, and there is a bad precedent set if the best player in the league is not being paid as such. There is a fear that other owners could use that as a cudgel in negotiations with their stars, much like Jackson has did with Anthony.

You can imagine sullen team officials going before fans and saying, “We wanted to sign our star, but he is so greedy, he would not take less than his services are worth.”

That has raised a lot of dander around the league.

“It’s just ridiculous,” one agent told SN. “There is this whole brainwashing thing going on and teams are selling it to their fans that this player or that player should take less, that they would not take their money if they truly cared about winning. That’s BS. If you want to win, you’re the owner, go over the tax line.

"This is the CBA you wanted, this is what the owners wanted. Why does the money come out of the players' pockets? The players just gave back a huge amount in the CBA. But, no, that’s the brainwashing — that the players are the bad guys if they try to get what the CBA says they should get.”

The union has not officially released a memo or a directive to players and agents on the subject, sources told Sporting News, in part because the union still does not have an executive director. But it is a possibility depending on how the next few days play out.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2014-07-03/nba-free-agency-carmelo-anthony-lebron-james-heat-knicks-pay-cut-nbpa-union

"go over the tax line" LOL

BOO FUCKING HOO

Knixkik wrote:For the Knicks it has nothing to do with the tax, it's all about being able to spend more within the constants of the salary cap. This article misses a lot.

It is from the NBPA perspective.

Seriously this CBA is broken. I'm not sure what the solution is, but this is not it. It can't be beneficial to have to sign most of your roster to minimum salaries in order to sign two max players. Their formula needs fixing. Maybe they need two tiers of salary cap. Each team can spent $X amount on salaries above $7m and $y on salaries below. Something like that

Panos wrote:Seriously this CBA is broken. I'm not sure what the solution is, but this is not it. It can't be beneficial to have to sign most of your roster to minimum salaries in order to sign two max players. Their formula needs fixing. Maybe they need two tiers of salary cap. Each team can spent $X amount on salaries above $7m and $y on salaries below. Something like that

because the impact guys are the most coveted. I mean NFL is no different. One guy can take 15% of your cap and you have 40 other guys to pay. Its really on the owners. They will spend the most they are allowed. Its a given.

dk7th wrote:"go over the tax line" LOL

BOO FUCKING HOO

I can't believe Micky Arison would risk losing a player like Lebron James and the all the value that goes along with him to not pay the luxury tax. Miami is seriously the worst franchise with a terrible fan base. They are so lucky Pat Riley is there or that franchise would be a Laughing stock

Jmpasq wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Well I can see what the nbapa is comming from. They are basically trying to create the public narrative that you are not a team player unless you take a pay cut. They want their cake and eat it to. They don't want the cap to increase they want the players to sacrifice without them sacrificing by going over the tax.

I brought this up in another thread. The NBA's Best player by trying to gain a competitive advantage created an environment where taking the max is now viewed negatively by NBA fanbases. They are undermining their own negotiating leverage its incredibly stupid.

that was a one off. LBJ is getting the max next year, end of story.