"There is NO DOUBT in my mind that (the players) are going to get locked out." - Charles Barkley via The New York Post
Usually I don't bet against Sir Charles, but I read an article at the USA Today that strongly disagreed:
"Barkley is wrong. There will not be a lockout." - Jeff Zillgitt for the USA Today
I read Zillgitt's rebuttal, and it made surprisingly strong points, especially coming from a USA Today writer. His argument is that everyone in the NBA is making money, and franchise valuations have never been higher. It would be insane for the owners to lock the players out when the business model is working.
This CBA is not going to be the NBA's biggest test, it's going to be Adam Silver's biggest test. As long as the NBA kept making more and more money, David Stern kept the owners in line.
But I would argue that in Football, Baseball, and Hockey, the OWNERS keep the commissioner in line. In the NBA, the COMMISSIONER keeps the owners in line. I think that Charles Barkley may know something that Jeff Zillgitt doesn't. I think that the soap opera that surrounded Kyrie Irving and Kevin Durant embarrassed Joseph Tsai. And I think other owners are sympathetic to what Joseph Tsai endured, specifically in relation to Kyrie Irving and his antisemitic posts on social media.
Billionaires don't like to be embarrassed.
Again, I am speculating, I keep using the terms "I think" over and over, but I think the owners want to clamp down on the players' power in the NBA.
Now don't get me wrong, and I've been wrong many times, but the reason this is an intriguing case study is because in the NBA, the sport revolves around money. Would the owners really risk money in order to gain power over the players?
Great Question.
Comments