Rebellion Against the National Basketball Association
This is an excerpt from the paper...
In the fall of 1995 the National Basketball Association was threatened by several of its own members who wanted to decertify the union just as the union was negotiating a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Decertification would mean the end of the union, and this drive was being spurred by several big-name p-layers who believed that the players would be better served by the protections under federal antitrust rules. Others point out, however, that the end of the union would also mean the end of certain benefits and even pensions for many players. The effort by these basketball players challenges the idea of sports unions in general and raises a number of questions concerning the supposed necessity for decertification, the relationship between the state of athletic bargaining agreements and other agreements, and the degree to which this area of work differs from others in ways that might affect the relationship between members and the union. The rebellion against the NBA began in earnest in the summer of 1995. This came after a number of agreements had been made that seemed to give basketball players a good deal and the chance to share in profits. The revenue-sharing deal negotiated by the union was the first time in professional sports that both management and labor had a tangible reason to push for growth. The move by Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing, and other players, however, would not only challenge the union but undo certain agreements, including the revenue-shar
. . .
ionaires striking against another. On the one side were the owners, who have very profitable franchises in the baseball clubs they own. The players, backed by the most successful union in history, were also very wealthy--more than 100 players make over $3 million a season, and the average salary is just over $1 million:
The strike, at its core, is over the simplest of economic issues: how to divide this growing pie. And while economics is as riveting as a two hour rain delay, it is central to the stalled negotiations. The clash involves base self interest and primal greed: the owners want to put a cap on how much players can earn; the players want to defend and expand the right to negotiate salaries they believe they deserve.
The players in the baseball strike may have felt their job security was threatened, but at the same time it seemed that there was little chance of the players really being hurt by the strike. The owners were offering 50 percent of revenues, with a baseline share of $1 billion, and they were offering to raise minimum salaries above the $109,000 mark. This starting point was already a good deal for the players. Most unions face economic losses when they lose a strike, but baseball and basketball player
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Patrick Ewing, Players Association, Agreement Decertification, Players' Association, Basketball Association, Zoglin Bummer, collective bargaining, collective bargaining agreement, Jet October, retired players, bargaining agreement, Illustrated July, Fortune October, Week September, basketball players, september 4 1995, players losing, six service, service retired, six service retired, antitrust rules, service retired 1965, 4 1995, retired 1965 receive, revenue-sharing deal,
Approximate Word count = 1577
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Rebellion Against the National Basketball Association
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
