Hacker News Reader

Comment by canistr | Hacker News Reader

I don't know how related it is, but it does feel like the rich are getting richer.

In this case, because of the massive NBA TV-contract (9-year $24 billion with NBA-ESPN-TNT), the net losers out of this are not the millionaire players or executives, but the 4% workforce getting laid off.

So while it's all fun to say that Lebron James is getting underpaid, this new contract and the subsequent increase in salary cap means that you're not paying for the ESPN employees to do their job but giving it to the rich.

View on HN

A guy with an iPhone 6s can probably shoot the NBA game about as well as a high end camera in the 90s, shit, it even does slomotion without post-processing. If ESPN is going to pay Kobe Bryant[0] money for a 9 year TV contract, it is because the cable lines are already run, it is only going to get cheaper to produce and transmit this television, and the value of a game takes about a 90% haircut after 24 hours having virtually no rebroadcast appeal, except for playoffs.

This is a symptom of people doing more with less, rent collectors collecting rent, and the NBA beeing smart enough to lock this shit down. I mean, do you think cable television can make it 9 more years? Like, they still bundle a fucking phone in with that shit because voip makes it virtually free, but fuck if I am going to set up a land line for spammers to call me on. People like sports and watch them live so almost no one, at least no one I know, torrents the passed year and a half of Golden State Warriors games and binges them over a weekend.

[0]http://genius.com/48735

I think one of these professional teams are going to get wise and start putting their own cameras in their stadiums and start streaming the content. They own the content and can get it to the customer on their own terms. The technology is not a barrier anymore. This is going to get interesting in the next few years.

False. While most pro teams in major leagues other than NFL have local TV deals, the leagues control all of the national broadcast rights, including streaming services, and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Who on earth would say LeBron James is underpaid? He makes $24 million in basketball pay, which is third in the league to Kobe and somehow Joe Johnson, plus god knows how much in endorsement deals.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/02/12/275922026/episo...

http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-much-is-lebron-really-wor...

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2013/5/1/4291088/lebron-james...

And many more...

It is generally agreed upon that in a salary capped league, and especially in basketball wherein a single player has a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a game, salaries are depressed in comparison to what teams would pay for his services on an open market. Lebron guarantees a competitive team no matter where he plays and significantly increased revenues and franchise values when leaving for Miami and returning to Cleveland.

I joke sometimes that its the intersection of nominally left/liberal American pundits with sports fans. The political blog Lawyers Guns and Money being a good example of it-people you wouldn't think would have those views, but when it comes to professional sports, all of a sudden self proclaimed socialists love themselves a free market.

It's not a love of the free-market that drives these conversations; it's a hatred of exploitive capitalism. Ultimately, the players are source of all the league's revenue, yet the have to split that money with the owners (who contribute almost nothing to the day-to-day revenue stream).

The players also have a strong union, which negotiates a number of protections for the players, from minimum salaries to safe work conditions, while allowing for higher compensation for key players.

So it is very reasonable for those of us on the left to be against the extreme labor exploitation represented by the salary cap.

Can players own a team instead of the traditional owner model?

Theoretically it's possible. Realistically no. The leagues vote on team ownership transfers, and they are unlikely to allow a sale that upsets their apple cart. Which is why only one team (Green Bay Packers) out of the big three sports is owned by a government body.

"But if this offseason is any indication, max players are the bargains once again. Forgive me for sounding like a bad Internet headline — but you are not going to believe how underpaid Kawhi Leonard is, despite his new max contract. The same salary cap spike that’s made this free-agency period so wacky is shifting what the league’s players are worth yet again."[1]

[1]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kawhi-leonard-like-all-t...

The NBA has a salary cap, unlike the MLB. Some say it forces players like LeBron to play for less than they are worth.

Actually the ones which are losing in this deal are the people who will pick the tab, in this case, ESPN's customers because they would finance the deal out of their pockets if ESPN decides to pass the costs as usual to the end customer i.e. cable TV users.

Regarding the laid off employees, as much as I hate to hear this but their loss is temporary and not permanent as long as they could secure another job soon and not burn the severance compensation or their savings quickly before landing the next job.

He makes more than double what Curry makes, and Curry has the same number of championships at Cleveland than Lebron.

LeBron was in 6 NBA finals and 5 of them straight, and has two rings. Curry has one. Robert Horry has more rings than Kobe, that does not prove one damn thing.

I didn't mean to drag the conversation down to this level. We can pick it up on espn where I feel more comfortable distorting facts to my advantage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com