I just posted on Ben's piece about Paul Allen signing the latter along with nine other owners decrying the 50/50 split offer that Stern made to the players and that was rejected yesterday. I also posted something a bit along this line in something called "where the owners went wrong" in an earlier fan post.
It's not secret that I favor the owners' position (the "hard liners'" in particular) over the players in this little drama. Of course, I'd be even more hard line than the "hard liners". I'd simply say to the players, "I'll pay you what I can afford to pay you and that I think you're worth based on your performance". Absolutely none of this BRI business and the rest that clutters up the process. The sign of way too many lawyers in the kitchen as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, here's my question. What if (and that's a huge if at this point because even the hardest of hard liners, to my knowledge, haven't proposed this) the owners followed my path and said "every dime MY business generates is MINE and I'll pay you what I think you're worth"? And then, what if the players started screaming and sniveling and said "no, a thousand times no. You are horrible people and I won't play for you any more (you need to picture petulant, spoiled children with their arms crossed, pouting, and stamping the ground all at the same time-well they are, athletes after all and therefore (capable of such dexterity) And then, what if the owners said thusly: "all righty then, you guys go find another way of making a living, form your own league, whatever, and we'll just hire us some players who would really appreciate the opportunity to play hard every night, be adored by fans, and make way more than what the average American can ever dream of making in their entire life times?"
So, does anyone REALLY think that the players, if push came to shove, would then go out and form a league with the same busted business model that the current league has had? I mean seriously. One only needs to look as far as M. Jordan (never mind what one might think of him as a human being or as a former Blazer killer) to see what how a player turned owner sees the world much differently now than they probably did before.
I don't. In fact, I think the players- turned- owners would make the current owners look like Santa Claus. It's not nearly as much fun to be in a "players' league" if that would mean having to take all of the risks that the owners do AND guarantee players salaries no matter how well the league does or how well players perform. Funny how things work that way.
What do YOU think?