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-sharing deal.
This effort came after more than a decade during which the NBA had enjoyed relative peace compared to the other major sports unions for baseball and football, each of which had moved from one labor problem to another. The central issue for the sport now was how best to divide up an ever-growing profit pool. In August 1995, the NBA reached an agreement with the players' union that offered a six-year deal which would also undercut the ability of p...