Menu for Tonight's Show, Offside: The Business and Law of Sports

Who should pay for pro sports facilities? We will interview Glen Hodgson, author of the Conference Board of Canada study released this week that addressed this very issue. Glen is a great interview and it promises to be interesting.

We will also hit the 2 NFL concussion lawsuits and explain how they are in fact different.

This and more in our one and only hour. Live today on the Team 1200 from 6 to 7pm Eastern.

Oh yes - and a little Who's The Boss/Tony Danza.

Sports Legal Analyst for TSN Radio Toronto

I'm happy to announce that I've signed on as TSN Radio Toronto's sports legal analyst. Well maybe "announce" is a strong word. Perhaps mutter, mumble or mention is more appropriate.

Will HGH Testing Happen this Season in the NFL?

You might remember on the heels of the new CBA being ratified, the NFL announced it would implement HGH testing at the start of the season, and test players, without limitation, on game days. None of the 4 leagues tests for HGH so this was big.

Not so fast, said the NFLPA.

"The truth is that we have not agreed to any of the terms and everything the league has said is what it hopes for," NFL Player Association spokesman George Atallah told the New York Times. "All of those things they are talking about are still open to discussion."

The new CBA provides that HGH testing would be conducted annually and on a random basis. If the sides can't reach agreement on HGH testing, then the current testing policy stays in place. That policy doesn't call for blood testing - so no HGH testing.

The sticking point is the procedures that would be used by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The NFLPA is questioning the reliability of the WADA's HGH testing and the transparency of its results. WADA handles drug testing for the Olympics.

The NFLPA has talked about commissioning their own independent studies.

So what does all this mean? With the NFLPA wanted to examine testing procedures on its own, it would be surprising to see HGH testing in place this season. This is despite pressure from Congress to resolve the matter. It's possible - but time is running out.

HGH is illegal without a doctor's prescription. It has been associated with helping athletes recover faster from injury and also enhance their performances (there is the argument that it does not help improve performance; however it stands to reason that if it helps a player recover then it by extension improves that player's performance).

HGH is difficult to detect. Only a blood sample taken with within 36 to 48 hours of HGH being introduced into the blood stream can reliably show its presence.

TSN Toronto Radio Clip - Bonds, Britt, Talib & Goddell

Click here to listen to my radio clip with Bryan Hayes from TSN Radio Toronto. You will need to scroll a page or so in to find my Scrabble friendly name.

Bryan is on from 12 to 4pm weekdays and does a terrific job carrying the show on his own. Always prepared and thoughtful.

Bonds Conviction Upheld & Next Steps

Barry Bonds' obstruction of justice conviction has been upheld by a federal judge, who denied his motion for a new trial or acquittal on the charge.

Background

Let's first remind ourselves of the charges against Bonds. There were 3 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction of justice:

- Two of the 3 perjury counts related to Bonds knowingly lying he took steroids and PEDs.

- The 3rd count (which is Count 2 in the indictment), however, referred to Bonds' denial that Anderson injected him. So this count, unlike the other 2, didn't require that the prosecution show that Bonds was injected with steroids. The prosecution just needed to show that Bonds was simply injected (who cares with what) and that he knowingly lied about it.

The jury made the following findings:

(a) The jurors couldn't unanimously agree that Bonds knowingly lied about taking steroids and PEDs, or that he lied about simply being injected. That means that all the charges involving steroids, needles and PEDs failed.

(b) The jurors unanimously agreed that Bonds obstructed justice by giving evasive and misleading testimony.

Overall, Bonds was not convicted for lying under oath but rather was convicted for being misleading and evasive under oath.

Here's one statement made by Bonds' during his grand jury testimony that was an example of an evasive answer:

Question: "Did Greg ever give you anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?" Bonds was asked.

Answer: "That's what keeps our friendship," Bonds said in the part of his answer the government charged was a crime. "You know, I am sorry, but that – you know, that – I was a celebrity child, not just in baseball by my own instincts. I became a celebrity child with a famous father. I just don't get into other people's business because of my father's situation, you see."

In maintaining the conviction,  Judge Susan Illston wrote that Bonds was misleading on numerous occasions, and providing the answers later in his testimony did not make up for his initial evasion:

"(The) defendant repeatedly provided nonresponsive answers to questions about whether Anderson had ever provided him with injectables, resulting in the prosecuting attorneys asking clarifying question after clarifying question, and even once resulting in one prosecutor interrupting another who was about to move on to a new topic in order to clarify defendant's mixed responses. An evasive answer about an issue material to the grand jury is not necessarily rendered immaterial by the later provision of a direct answer, even if that direct answer is true."

What's Next 

U.S. sentencing guidelines provide that Bonds could get 15 to 21 months in jail, although Judge Illston has the discretion to modify that. For similar offenses in the BALCO steroids ring case, Judge Illston sentenced cyclist Tammy Thomas to six months of home confinement and track coach Trevor Graham to one year of home confinement. So jail time may not be in the cards, unless the prosecution decides to retry Bonds and is successful. This, however, would seem unlikely.

Expect Bonds to appeal the Court's decision. So this is not done yet.

Here's some more background on the case:

Bonds: Copy of the Amended Indictment & Talking Perjury

A Legal Primer: The Curious Conviction of Barry Bonds

Barry Bonds Trial: Not A Referendum On Whether He Did PEDs

Britt & Talib Avoid Suspensions; Will Any NFL Players Be Suspended For Lockout Incidents?

Tampa Bay Buccaneers cornerback Aqib Talib and Tennessee Titans wide receiver Kenny Britt will not be suspended by the league for their offseason arrests.

The NFL has reserved the right to revisit the Talib matter depending on how his trial goes.

Talib has twice been involved in fights with players and assaulted a cab driver in Florida in 2009. He was suspended for 1 game for that under the Policy.

Talib, a fourth-year pro, is now facing a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon that happened during the lockout. Police in the Dallas suburb of Garland say they believe Talib and his mother shot at a man. Talib has been indicted and faces trial in 2012.

Britt was also busy during the lockout. He was arrested and charged with eluding an officer and hindering apprehension when police accused him of driving his Porsche 71 mph in a 50-mph zone before leaving the officer. Britt later was found walking on a side street away from his car. Charges were reduced to a misdemeanor and a fine.

A day after those charges were reduced, two plainclothes officers in a Hoboken car wash smelled marijuana and accused Britt of holding a rolled cigar they believed was the source. Britt was wrestled to the floor and handcuffed. The police believed a man who was with the receiver might have disposed of the cigar.

In all, Britt has been involved in 7 "incidents" involving police over his career.

So the issue is whether the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy should apply to transgressions that occurred during the lockout. The NFL has said all along it would indeed apply, while the Union has resisted that position.

Bottom Legal Line: the NFL would argue that even though the players were locked out, they remained employees and the Policy covers the conduct of employees. On top of that, the Policy is not part of the CBA, which had expired. On the flip side, the players would argue that the lockout deprived them of the benefits of their employment. That being said, how could they still be accountable to discharge their employment obligations?

There is no clear answer to whether the NFL can discipline players for stuff that happened during the lockout. Grey area.

(It's been reported in a few spots that the Policy can't apply because it was in the CBA, which had expired. That's not the case - the Policy actually sites outside the Policy).

There are whispers that the NFL and Union agreed during CBA negotiations that the NFL could discipline up to 8 players.

Now we have learned that Britt and Talib got off without any discipline. Still, though, they were summoned to meet with Goodell. That may suggest that the NFL believes it can discipline players for lockout incidents.

The fact that they were not suspended is interesting since there was plenty in the way of precedent for suspensions. Players that have been charged with similar or lesser crimes have been suspended. Here's a list of suspensions courtesy of ESPN:

• Rocky Bernard (assault, 1 game)

• Michael Boley (domestic abuse, 1 game)  

• Fred Evans (fight with police, 2 games)

• Chris Henry (various arrests, 8 games)

• Larry Johnson (simple assault, 1 game)

• Tank Johnson (2-month jail term, 8 games)

• Pacman Jones (various arrests, 16 games, 6 games)

• Marshawn Lynch (weapons violation, 3 games)

• Ricky Manning (felony assault, 1 game)

• Brandon Marshall (various, including assaulting girlfriend, 1 game)

• Bryant McKinnie (street fight, 4 games)

• Rob Reynolds (domestic disturbance, 16 games)

• Ben Roethlisberger (misconduct-no charges/arrests, 6 games)

• Donte' Stallworth (DUI-vehicular homicide, 16 games)

• Fabian Washington (domestic violence, 1 game)

• Michael Vick (dogfighting, 2 games)

Roethlisberger is the only player suspended by Goodell under the Policy who hasn't been arrested or charged with a crime.

So how did Britt and Talib get off if other players with similar incidents got suspended? As well, both were arrested and both are repeat offenders. Talib has already been suspended under the Policy.

Frankly, it's not clear. Maybe the NFL reached a deal with the Union on how it would go about disciplining players for lockout incidents.

Had it not been a lockout year, it's safe to conclude that these 2 players would have been suspended.

There are still a number of players that could face discipline, include Pacman Jones (disorderly conduct while intoxicated and resisting arrest), Cedric Benson (assault) and Perrish Cox (sexual assault). It will be interesting to see how things unfold. Further rulings could give us some clues as to the NFL's application of the Policy for lockout incidents.

And don't forget another thing - it's possible the Union could seek to legally challenge any suspensions. This assumes, though, that the sides haven't hammered out an agreement on the application of the Policy.

Yes - this is all a bit confusing.

Britt Meets With Commish; Should Personal Conduct Policy During Lockout

The NFL is looking into whether it will punish Kenny Britt for his 2 arrests during the lockout.

Below is a story I wrote on July 25 on whether the NFL Personal Conduct Policy applies during a lockout. The story analysed the legal components of the case and whether the application of the policy could make sense. Given Britt's recent meeting with Goodell, here's the story again:

________________________________________ 

During the lockout, there have been over 20 incidents that could attract the application of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy.

Here's some of what went down during the lockout:

Chris Cook (brandishing a handgun). Mario Henderson (carrying a concealed weapon). Bryan McCann (public intoxication). Johnny Jolly (drug possession). Jason Peters (disturbing the peace).Aqib Talib (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon). Louis Murphy (drug possession). Mike Vrabel (felony theft). Kenny Britt (eluding police, obstruction). William Moore (speeding, driving with suspended license). Antwan Applewhite (drunken driving suspicion). Alex Magee (marijuana possession). Garrett Wolfe (theft, disorderly conduct, assaulting an officer, resisting arrest with violence). Kenny Britt (resisting arrest). Javarris James (drug possession).Brandon Underwood (disorderly conduct). Raheem Brock (theft, resisting arrest). Akeem Jordan (assault and battery). Hines Ward (drunken driving). Pacman Jones (disorderly conduct while intoxicated and resisting arrest ).

The NFL has said all along that it will apply the Policy to players who violated it during the lockout. Here's what league spokesman Greg Aiello said on the matter:

“It is a league policy established by the commissioner. We review any violations of law by NFL employees for potential discipline. The personal conduct policy is not being applied to players now but will be applied when they return. Players will be held accountable for violations of law that occurred during the lockout.”

The Policy starts with this language:

"All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League."

The question is this: can the NFL enforce the Policy for conduct that occurred during the lockout?

Well the answer falls in a grey area. On the one hand, the NFL would argue that even though the players were locked out, they remained employees and the Policy covers the conduct of employees. On top of that, the Policy is not part of the CBA, which had expired.

On the flip side, the players would argue that the lockout deprived them of the benefits of their employment. That being said, how could they still be accountable to discharge their employment obligations?

So there is no clear cut answer on the issue. It's possible that the sides may have considered this in their negotiations. If they didn't, and the NFL looks to enforce the Policy, look for the reformed Union to fight it.

NFL Fan Code of Conduct - What Is It & Is It Enforceable?

On November 29, 2009, Jason Ensign went to a Chargers/Chiefs game at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego. He was wearing his Chiefs jersey, and got jeered for it. In response, he yelled profanities and expressed his displeasure by extending one of his fingers.

Cue the incident.

Security guards forcibly removed him from his seat. He fought back biting and punching (sounds like a typical barbeque at my house). Ensign was then arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery.

The scuffle and Ensign's ensuing arrest gave way to a legal battle that focused on this question: is the NFL's Fan Code of Conduct enforceable?

NFL Implements Fan Code of Conduct

In 2008, the NFL implemented the Fan Code of Conduct to promote a positive fan environment at NFL stadiums. The NFL implemented the fan code of conduct as a reaction to fan complaints that drinking, the use of profanities, etc., made the game day experience unpleasant.

With the NFL also losing fans to the comfort of their home theatres, it needed to try and take a proactive step. That gave rise to the Fan Code of Conduct.

The NFL said that the Fan Code of Conduct was

“designed to set clear expectations and encourage a stadium environment that is enjoyable for all fans. Teams may add additional provisions to the standard code based on local circumstances or preferences. Each team will communicate its code of conduct during the preseason to season-ticket holders and fans through mailings, online, and in-stadium signage, and other messages.”

"The in-stadium experience is critically important to the NFL, our clubs and our fans and it will be a major focus this season," said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. "We are committed to improving the fan experience in every way we can -- from the time fans arrive in the parking lot to when they depart the stadium. We want everyone to be able to come to our stadiums and enjoy the entire day."

The Fan Code of Conduct is intended to address behavior that detracts from the game day experience. Any fan in violation of these provisions will be subject to ejection without refund and loss of ticket privileges for future games.

The Code

Here’s the Fan Code of Conduct:

The National Football League and its teams are committed to creating a safe, comfortable, and enjoyable experience for all fans, both in the stadium and in the parking lot. We want all fans attending our games to enjoy the experience in a responsible fashion. When attending a game, you are required to refrain from the following behaviors:

- Behavior that is unruly, disruptive, or illegal in nature.

- Intoxication or other signs of alcohol impairment that results in irresponsible behavior.

- Foul or abusive language or obscene gestures.

- Interference with the progress of the game (including throwing objects onto the field).

- Failing to follow instructions of stadium personnel.

- Verbal or physical harassment of opposing team fans.

So with the Ensign case, the issue was whether the NFL Fan Code of Conduct was enforceable. Were fans provided with sufficient notice of the Code making its application fair?

Yes - It's Enforceable

A San Diego Judge recently ruled that Ensign was subject to the NFL Fan Code of Conduct. So yes - it's enforceable. 

As a side note, the Judge dismissed the battery charge, saying that Ensign had every right to fight back.

From a legal standpoint, how does all this shake out?

Your Ticket is a License

A ticket to a sporting event constitutes a license to enter and remain at the stadium.

The operator of the event has the ability to place reasonable restrictions on that license, especially when the behavior of one licensee can negatively impact the experience of another licensee.

Ensign was an invitee or a licensee as a paying customer and accordingly he had to comply with the NFL's Fan Code of Conduct while at the stadium.

So the bottom line is that when you buy a ticket you are being granted a license to enter the stadium and you need to abide by the rules of that stadium. The Fan Code of Conduct was prominently displayed (appeared around the stadium, over urinals, etc.), so that became part of the deal.

As a side note, municipalities have laws against yelling obscenities in public place. So that could also kick in.

Finally, how often have we heard someone trying to claim the benefit of their First Amendment right to free speech? Don’t forget, though - freedom of speech relates to the expression of ideas and opinions, not the unrestrained yelling of profanities.

So yes – teams have the right to toss you from a game if your behaviour is not reasonable.

Frankly, since those would be the terms of any reasonable license, that applies whether there is a fan code of conduct in place or not.

Episode 10 - Offside: Link to Podcast of Live Show

Click here to link to a podcast of tonight's big show, Offside: The Business and Law of Sports.

We hit the Jefferson's, Zambrano, the sale of the Blues, the Coyotes and the NCAA. We also enjoyed the theme song to the classic show, WKRP in Cincinnati.

What's More Impressive: 600 HRs or 3000 Hits?

Jim Thome hit his 600th home run on August 15.

You may remember that Derek Jeter recorded his 3000th hit in July. It was easy to miss as there was little in the way of press coverage. As a side note, I now own Jeter 3000 coasters, flip flops, shampoo, bicycle streamers, elastics, luggage, wine, toothbrush, dehumidifier, mattress, pajamas (with feet), cigars, mango, balm, pasta, tea set, washing machine, binoculars, nose ring, belt buckle, tap dance shoes, toaster, parachute and robot.

What is more impressive - 600 home runs or 3000 hits?

Maybe it's 3000 hits. There seems to be something more intellectual about 3000 hits - right?

However, when you take a closer look at the numbers, 600 home runs seems a little more impressive than 3000 hits. Why? So few have done it, and fewer without the help of A-Rod's cousin.

The 600 home run club is comprised of Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Ken Griffey Jr., Sammy Sosa, and Alex Rodriguez.

If you remove A-Rod, Bonds and Sosa, Thome only becomes the 5th player ever to hit 600 home runs. By way of comparison, Jeter was number 28 to enter the 3000 hit club. Knock off Rafael Palmeiro, who made it clear he never took steroids, then the club has 27 members.

However, it does seem like you need to be pretty consistent to get 3000 hits. Same, though, goes with 600 home runs. Thome hit 20 plus home runs in 17 seasons. That's slightly absurd. And by the way, he's got 2265 hits.

Home runs also pay an immediate dividend for a team as it obviously drives in at least 1 run. A hit, however, may not be a homerun and may need further assistance from another player to get the run safely home.

I'm not saying that 3000 hits is not remarkable - it is. It just seems like it's a lot tougher to hit 600 home runs, and home runs have an immediate impact on the score.

So for me, 600 is more impressive than 3000. Indeed, 600 is the new 40 (and I don't know what that means).

Forbes.com: Sports Is Helping To Spur Growth In Boston

Adrianne Melville of Forbes.com has penned an article about the impact of sports on Boston's economy. 

In June 2011, Mayor Tom Menino reported that there were 163 major professional sports home games in Boston last year, which resulted in $300 million in fan spending.

Perhaps the most compelling stat in the article is that Boston’s population has grown at a faster pace over the past 10 years when compared to New York City, Chicago and San Francisco. On top of that, Boston has the highest proportion of the highly coveted 20 to 34 year-olds in all major U.S. cities:

According to the 2010 census, Boston’s population has grown to 617,594 over the last 10 years, a faster pace than New York City, Chicago and San Francisco. But more importantly, the census reveals that Boston now has the highest proportion of 20- to  34-year-olds in all major U.S. cities. This is a competitive demographic for cities across the country, as it generally reflects highly educated, entrepreneurial, top consumers who can contribute to a city’s social and cultural scene. Perhaps more important, members of this age group are generally huge sports fans.

As a side note, the article notes that experts say Fenway has about another 40 to 50 years of life remaining.

The article does not draw a direct link between sports and the economy. Still, it is interesting in that the impact of sport is undeniable. It also begs the question: how many people move to Boston because it is a successful and fun town, a perception which may be a direct result of its sports teams winning on a seemingly regular basis. Certainly, the article raises questions of the impact of sport on the perception of a city and how that translates to population growth.

Read the article here.

Offside Learns That NHL Abandons Plan to Seek Formal Approval Process for Goalie Mask Artwork

Offside has learned that the NHL has agreed to abandon its efforts to implement a formal approval process for goalie mask artwork. Under the proposed rule, goalie masks would have needed to be approved by the NHL before they could be worn in a game.

The NHL and NHLPA had been discussing the matter for a number of years, with the NHLPA opposing the idea. The NHLPA argued that there was little on a goalie's mask that would ordinarily be considered objectionable. As well, for the most part, goaltenders did not display problematic artwork on their masks.

The NHLPA also noted that in the modest number of cases where the artwork was an issue for the NHL, goalies agreed to make the necessary changes.

The current policy governing goalie mask artwork will remain in place. This policy provides that club equipment managers will photograph all goalie masks at training camp and submit the photographs to the NHL and NHLPA for review. Should a mask be deemed problematic, the matter will be addressed with a view to finding a solution.

In order for goalies to avoid issues, their masks should not include images or references to alcohol, smoking, drugs, gambling, political commentary, profanity, graphic violence, nudity or other possible controversial topics. As well, masks may not display commercial branding (except of course in cases of league-approved logos).

Accordingly, while the NHL will continue to exercise some degree of control over goalies masks, the absence of a formal process is less onerous on players. The NHLPA is undoubtedly pleased with this outcome.

Practically speaking, however, the outcomes are unlikely to differ, as under either policy, the NHL could still express their displeasure with a mask with a view to getting it changed.

Should forwards and defensemen be permitted to dress up their helmets? Discuss.

Offside Radio Show Tonight: Player Deals, Exec Editor of Sports Business Journal

Fun show on tap today at 6pm ET on the Team 1200.

We will cover the economics of the Blake Griffin/Kia dunk and what that meant for all involved (ran out of time last week - sorry). We will also talk player endorsement deals generally (Vick, Tiger, etc.) and how marketable players like Clemens and Bonds are.

We will also be interviewing Abraham Madkour, executive editor of the Sports Business Journal. Abraham is really good on the radio. Should be good one.

NBA Players Going Overseas: Impact Overstated & Risky Move

In July, the head of the NBA Union (NBPA) Billy Hunter issued a memo to his players encouraging them to play in Europe and elsewhere during the lockout.

The thinking behind having players go abroad is to put pressure on the NBA and its owners in the CBA negotiations. Basically, with its players making money abroad, the Union could then argue to the owners that the players don't need them.

"This lockout is intended to economically pressure our players to agree to an unfavorable collective bargaining agreement," Hunter wrote in his memo. "It is important for the owners to understand that there may be significant consequences to their decision to put their own players in these difficult economic circumstances.

"If the owners will not give our players a forum in which to play basketball here in the United States, they risk losing the greatest players in the world to the international basketball federations that are more than willing to employ them."

Problem is that the impact of NBA players playing overseas with a view to extracting leverage in CBA negotiations is very much overstated. Shooting hoops in Europe, China or India isn't going to force the NBA's hand one bit, and if history is any indication, the impact may well be non-existent.

In 2004-05, the NHL locked out its players and ultimately lost an entire season. Locked out, NHL players decided to head overseas and play hockey. And a lot of them went.

Over half the NHL population played overseas with a total of 388 players playing abroad. The list of players is impressive: Thornton, Chara, Nash, Morrison, Ovechkin, Boyle, Alfredsson, Heatley, Forsberg, Sedin twins, Aucoin, Fisher, Naslund, Chris Mason, Hartnell, Lecavalier and Richards. This list goes on.

And what impact did this have on negotiations on domestic soil? None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In fact, it probably reminded NHL players how good they had it here. Remember, playing abroad isn't all roses. Practically speaking, some players never get paid, the culture can be tough to deal with and safety can become an issue for players and their families. That's not to mention some guys had to watch Putin do push ups on their front lawn.

Oh yes - one more tiny point: if a player gets hurt playing abroad, his contract can be voided by the NBA team. Contracts don't protect players from playing abroad (or in summer leagues for that matter), and if they get hurt that can be the end of their careers.

Menu for Tonight's Offside Radio Show

Another packed hour on the Offside radio show, where we talk the business and law of sports. Listen live at 1200AM or pick up the Podcast afterwards at http://www.team1200.com/.

We will hit the following topics:

1) The economics of Blake Griffin's dunk over the Kia Optima car during All-Star weekend. It had a tremendous impact for all brands involved, especially Kia.

2) The latest on the NBA lockout. We will talk about the lawsuit filed today as well as the labor law complaint filed by the owners. We will also discuss the significant (or lack thereof) of NBA players playing abroad as far as leverage for the Union.

3) We will talk the Isles failed attempt to get enough votes for public funding of an arena.

NFL.com - Great Free Agent Tracker

NFL.com has a great free agent tracker. It's located here - http://www.nfl.com/freeagency

NFLPA Reminds Players NFL Has Soft Cap

As per Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal, today, the players trade association (aka NFLPA) issued a memo to NFL player agents advising them that the NFL has a soft cap this year. The salary cap $120.375 million, but clubs can exceed it under the terms of the Brady settlement agreement.

There is a $3 million salary cap exemption available per club at their discretion, which if used fully by a club would raise the cap another $3 million. The memo states as follows: "the way this works is that a club may exempt from the salary cap the salaries (up to $1.0 million per player) of three players on the team who have more than five Accrued Seasons in the NFL. If a club chooses to exempt these salaries they will therefore have $3.0 million in additional cap room to sign other players".

So it's a soft cap - but not too soft.

Radio Clip: Talk 980 - Moral Clauses & The NFL

Here's a link to my radio segment with Drew Remenda and Gary Nickle from Talk 980. This for me was a thought provoking clip and highly enjoyable. With Mendenhall as the backdrop, we talked about what's considered immoral when it comes to moral clauses.

We also talked recertification, where I ended saying that the Union recertifying is kinda like Superman flying around the Earth to reverse its rotation to turn back time.

Mendenhall, Moral Clauses & His Talent Agreement

by Eric Macramalla and Graydon Ebert

“What kind of person celebrates death? It’s amazing how people can HATE a man they never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side… I believe in God. I believe we’re ALL his children. And I believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge. Those who judge others, will also be judged themselves. For those of you who said we want to see Bin Laden burn in hell and piss on his ashes, I ask how would God feel about your heart? There is not an ignorant bone in my body. I just encourage you to #think.”

          - Steelers RB Rashard Mendenhall’s Tweet following the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.

“If Mendenhall commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any situation or occurrence…tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public or any protected class or group thereof, then we shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement.”

          - The moral clause in Mendenhall’s Talent Agreement with Hanesbrands.

While we respect Mr. Mendenhall’s right to express sincere thoughts regarding potentially controversial topics, we no longer believe that Mr. Mendenhall can appropriately represent Champion and we have notified Mr. Mendenhall that we are ending our business relationship. Champion has appreciated its association with Mr. Mendenhall during his early professional football career and found him to be a dedicated and conscientious young athlete. We sincerely wish him all the best.

         - Hanesbrands press release announcing termination of Mendenhall.

_________________________________

Mendenhall is fighting back after the Champion sports apparel company dropped him from his endorsement deal after comments he made on Twitter questioning the public celebration of Osama bin Laden’s death. Last week, he sued seeking roughly $1 million in damages from Champion’s corporate parent company Hanesbrands Inc. alleging that its decision to end his deal violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

Problem for Mendenhall is that this lawsuit is unlikely to succeed. Maybe even worse is that other sponsors might never touch Mendenhall again for fear of being sued if they terminate his contract.

Here’s a link to Mendenhall’s court document (the Complaint):

Brand Owners & Endorsements: Looking To Make A Match in Heaven

Companies get athletes as sponsors because they want to associate their brands with a positive image. That can help with brand identity and brand elevation. When it goes well, it’s a win-win scenario. As part of endorsement deals, though, athletes can effectively give away their ability to speak freely.

If the athlete’s public image is sullied by his or her conduct, the value of the sponsorship is significantly diminished and the brand owner may want out.

That’s where moral clauses kick in.

History of Moral Clauses

Endorsement deals with athletes contain morals clauses which are drafted to allow companies to terminate the contract if the athlete’s off-field behaviour is undesirable. These moral clauses are usually pretty broad to give a company the option of cutting an athlete if they engage in questionable behaviour. Don’t forget – brand owners are generally risk adverse and they don’t want to associate themselves with a negative image.

Morals are shaped by the beliefs of a society, and so by implication, interpreting what’s moral can be a subjective exercise, at times elusive and constantly in flux.

The history behind moral clauses reveal their vagueness and how they are tied to the beliefs of a society. In the 1920s, the clauses became notorious during the McCarthyist era when they were used to terminate contracts of many writers, directors and producers who were accused of having communist leanings.

More recently, morals clauses have been used to terminate sponsor deals with Tiger Woods (adultery), as well as Michael Vick (dog fighting), Kobe Bryant (sexual assault) and Randy Moss (photographed with cocaine).

Mendenhall & His Moral Clause

Mendenhall’s contract contains provisions barring him from engaging in actions that would bring him “into public disrepute, contempt, scandal or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult, or offend the majority of the consuming public”.

From a legal standpoint, this is a broad clause, particularly the restriction from engaging in behaviour that would “offend”.

The clause is likely to cover Mendenhall’s Twitter comments, which prompted significant outrage in the public, and caused Steelers president Art Rooney to distance the organization from Mendenhall’s comments.

Any argument that Champion’s decision to terminate the endorsement deal is somehow a violation of his constitutional right to free speech is off base as constitutional rights are not applicable to the private relationship between Mendenhall and Champion.

Ultimately Mendenhall’s lawsuit does not have much chance of succeeding, and all athletes with endorsement deals need to think twice before making potentially controversial remarks on Twitter, Facebook or through other social media.

Maybe worse I’m not sure other sponsors will go near Mendenhall. The last thing they want is to get sued if Mendenhall is behaving badly.

Radio Clip Team 1200: We Talk the NFL Deal

Click here to listen to my segment with the guys on the morning show from the Team 1200. We breakdown the NFL deal and what fans should look for in the coming season.

From Britt to Pacman: Does the NFL Personal Conduct Policy Apply During the Lockout

During the lockout, there have been over 20 incidents that could attract the application of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy.

Here's some of what went down during the lockout:

Chris Cook (brandishing a handgun). Mario Henderson (carrying a concealed weapon). Bryan McCann (public intoxication). Johnny Jolly (drug possession). Jason Peters (disturbing the peace).Aqib Talib (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon). Louis Murphy (drug possession). Mike Vrabel (felony theft). Kenny Britt (eluding police, obstruction). William Moore (speeding, driving with suspended license). Antwan Applewhite (drunken driving suspicion). Alex Magee (marijuana possession). Garrett Wolfe (theft, disorderly conduct, assaulting an officer, resisting arrest with violence). Kenny Britt (resisting arrest). Javarris James (drug possession).Brandon Underwood (disorderly conduct). Raheem Brock (theft, resisting arrest). Akeem Jordan (assault and battery). Hines Ward (drunken driving).  Pacman Jones (disorderly conduct while intoxicated and resisting arrest ).

The NFL has said all along that it will apply the Policy to players who violated it during the lockout. Here's what league spokesman Greg Aiello said on the matter:

“It is a league policy established by the commissioner. We review any violations of law by NFL employees for potential discipline. The personal conduct policy is not being applied to players now but will be applied when they return. Players will be held accountable for violations of law that occurred during the lockout.”

The Policy starts with this language:

"All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League."

The question is this: can the NFL enforce the Policy for conduct that occurred during the lockout?

Well the answer falls in a grey area. On the one hand, the NFL would argue that even though the players were locked out, they remained employees and the Policy covers the conduct of employees. On top of that, the Policy is not part of the CBA, which had expired.

On the flip side, the players would argue that the lockout deprived them of the benefits of their employment. That being said, how could they still be accountable to discharge their employment obligations?

So there is no clear cut answer on the issue. It's possible that the sides may have considered this in their negotiations. If they didn't, and the NFL looks to enforce the Policy, look for the reformed Union to fight it.

Hitting The Brakes - NFL Players Won't Vote Tonight

The NFL voted to approve the new CBA. Problem is that according to the players the deal contain provisions that the players did not approve. So according to the players, the NFL ratified a deal the players didn't see.

Jim Trotter of SI.com and ESPN’s Chris Mortensen have obtained a copy of the e-mail sent by NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to the board of player representatives. Here it is:

“As you know the Owners have ratified their proposal to settle our differences,” the e-mail states. “It is my understanding they are forwarding it to us. As you may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions. As you know from yesterday, issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open other issues such as workers compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms remain unresolved. There is no agreement between the NFL and the Players at this time. I look forward to our call tonight.”

So no deal tonight. In fact, the players aren't going to vote tonight.

Follow me on Twitter - @EricOnSportsLaw - for updates all night.

Radio Clip: Team 1200 - NFL & Mendenhall

Click here to listen to my radio segment with AJ Jakubec (my Offside cohost) and Lee Versage (we don't cohost anything together). We talk NFL lockout and the Mendenhall lawsuit.

Podcast of Offside Radio Show: Cromartie & More

Click here to link to Episode 5 of the Offside Radio Show on the Team 1200. The show is Montreal Expos wall to wall. We interview Expos great Warren Cromartie on bringing baseball back to Montreal.

We also get his thoughts on a bunch of former Expos including Elis Valentine, Bill Lee, Tim Raines, Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Dick Williams, Steve Rodgers and Tim Wallach. The interview is a lot of fun. Great insight from Cro.

We also interview Glen Hodgson from the Conference Board of Canada. We talked about his report on the viability of Montreal to have an MLB team. Here's a link to the report.

Packers: And Here's The Denial

The Packers are denying that they contacted the players as per my entry below. Contacting players is a no no in a lockout - no matter what the progress of talks.

CBS Sports: Packers Told To Report To Work Saturday

Another sign that the NFL lockout is just about done - the Packers have been told to report to camp Saturday. This is according to CBS Sports:

"Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Packers are telling players that the doors will open on Friday, and that the team wants the players in town in order to get started on preparations for training camp and the preseason."

During a lockout, teams cannot communicate with players.
Read the article here.

Hitting Reset: Will The Prosecution Get Second Kick At Clemens Can?

In the Roger Clemens trial yesterday, the prosecution introduced evidence regarding Laura Pettite that Judge Walton had previously ruled was inadmissible. That was a no no, because once introduced, Judge Walton concluded that Clemens couldn't get a fair trial. So that was it, and a mistrial was declared.

Yes - big misstep. Worse misstep than going on Skating With The Stars. Arguably, though, not as big a misstep as David Caruso trying to go from TV to the movies.

So the issue now is whether, after the prosecution dedicated lots of tax dollars and time in preparing for the trial, will there be a retrial (or a new trial).

Your starting point is the double jeopardy rule which arises from the Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It says a person can't be tried for the same crime twice. Here's an important point - if the jury didn't reach a verdict, a retrial could still happen.

In figuring out whether there will be a retrial, the Court will look at things like whether a retrial would result in unfair delays for Clemens, whether the prosecution would secure an unfair advantage for the prosecution and whether the prosecution did all this on purpose.

The Clemens case just started and there have been no surprises so far. It is a strained argument that the prosecution would gain some type of advantage by getting a retrial or hitting the reset button. The trial is also only 2 days old, and a new trial could get underway by October, although it could be later. So delay doesn't seem like a big issue.

Overall, the reasonable conclusion is that there will be a retrial.

That being said, this case has been a little strange and unpredictable. So anything could happen. Anything shouldn't happen, but it could.

Radio Clip: Talk 980

Click here to listen to my radio clip with Drew Remenda of Talk 980. We covered a lot in a short period of time.

Will The U.S. Please Invade Canada

The ESPYS aren't on television in Canada - again. If anyone south of the border is listening, please invade Canada so I can finally watch the ESPYS live.

Just don't deregulate anything.

Thank you and see you and Seth Myers soon.

Today's Radio Segment Schedule

Today I will be making my way across the country by way of radio segments.

The morning started with a conversation with the Team 1260 in Edmonton. We talked about Clemens and the NFL. Clip is on the way.

Next up at 12:15 (all times eastern time) is TSN Radio in Toronto with Bryan Hayes, where we will talk jury selection in the Clemens trial. Interesting topic.

At 5:30, I will be talking with Sports Radio 1290 in Winnipeg with Gary Lawless and Andrew Paterson. They want to chat NFL, but something tells me we may wander into Clemens territory.

At 8:30 I will be doing Talk 980 in Saskatchewan with Drew Remenda.

Finally, I meet with my team of psychiatrists for an evening session from 10 and 2.

Disparity in Ticket Revenue Another Reason for Revenue Sharing in NBA

Recently I wrote an article entitled, Revenue Sharing Will Be Part of Solution for What Ails the NBA. In it, I talked about the need for a robust revenue sharing model among teams to even out the competitive playing field. Unlike the NFL, the NBA does not engage in substantial revenue sharing.

Case in point - NBA teams don't share revenue for local television deals. The New Orleans Hornets make $8 million/year off their TV deal, while the Sacramento Kings make $11 million/year and the Portland Trail Blazers make $12 million/year. Portland's deal is worth $120 million over 10 years.

In stark contrast, the Lakers TV deal is worth $3 billion over 20 years - or $150 a year. That means that one year of the Lakers deal is worth $30 million more than Portland's entire 10 year deal.

The gap between big and small markets is so large that the NBPA believes it undermines the stability of the NBA and the competitiveness of many of the teams. This argument is not unreasonable.

Here's something else to consider. There is a significant disparity in NBA ticket revenue, which NBA teams also don't share. The Lakers generate about $1.9 million per game, while the Grizzlies ($322,105) TWolves ($350,118) and Bucks ($415,450) generate a lot less.

For the Lakers, that ends up being $82,000,000 in ticket revenue, which is well ahead of the other 3 teams (Grizzlies - $13,202,000; TWolves - $14,350,000; Bucks - $17,015,000).

In fact, the Lakers pull in more ticket revenue than all 3 teams combined.

The NFL has a 60/40 policy whereby the home team keeps 60% of gate receipts and gives 40% of receipts to a pool, which is then distributed evenly among the 32 teams. The NFL has the most comprehensive system of shared gate receipts.

With this types of disparity, it can be tough to generate any type of meaningful and long term competitive balance. Revenue sharing will be part of the NBA solution.

Huh?

"As a kid, you dream to be up here with a bunch of guys that you watched back in the day, like Sosa, McGwire...and Giambi, how much fun they have," Robinson Cano on winning the Home Run Derby.

Someone please give Cano a copy of the Mitchell Report.

Next thing he'll do is dedicate his win to Shoeless Joe.

Interview with CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon

Click here to listen to our interview with CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon. We covered a lot of issues including U.S. expansion, the NFL, Canadian expansion and what makes a good commissioner.

Clemens Didn't Have To Testify in the First Place

Looks like the jury is set and opening arguments will begin tomorrow in the trial of Roger Clemens. The underlying allegation against Clemens is that he lied to Congress about doing performance enhancing drugs and steroids. His former trainer Brian McNamee says he injected Clemens with PEDs and steroids over 3 years between 1998 and 2001.

Here's the thing about this whole mess Clemens got himself into: it's self-inflicted.

Clemens was never forced to testify before Congress. He wanted to testify. He was never subpoenaed. Clemens wasn't happy when the 2007 Mitchell Report came out, which was a report summarizing an investigation into the use of PEDs and steroids by MLB players. The report mentioned Clemens 82 times, only third to Canseco (105 times) and Bonds (103).

So he thought he would go to Congress and proclaim his innocence. Problem is that he denied to Congress what others have insisted is true - Clemens used banned substances.

So rather than clear his name, he is now on trial for lying about taking PEDs and steroids.

Episode 4 - Offiside: The Business & Law of Sports

On tonight's show with my co-host AJ Jakubec, we will interview CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon. The interview promises to be really interesting.

We will also breakdown the Clemens trial and what to look for. As well, we will chat about the economics of Christian Lopez's decision to give up the ball to Jeter and the Yankees.

The show airs tonight between 6 and 7pm Eastern on the Team 1200 radio station. If you are not within range in Ottawa, you can go to http://www.team1200.com/ and listen live. There will also be a podcast posted after the show.

Will be a great show tonight - looking forward to it.

Josh Hamilton

Sean Gregory for Time wrote an article entitled, "Rangers Fan Tragedy: More Sadness For Josh Hamilton".

Here's an excerpt:

You feel for so many people here. First and foremost, you feel for the Stone family. A father was trying to catch a ball for his kid, like so many dads before him, and paid an unfathomable price. You feel for the kid who lost his dad. You feel for the witnesses — who knows how many times that scene will unfold, unprompted, in their minds?

And you've got to feel for Hamilton. After the game, Rangers president Nolan Ryan said Hamilton was "very distraught" over the accident. Hamilton has overcome so many challenges, and the one facing him now will be no less difficult. Hamilton is not responsible for Stone's death, but sadly, he played a hand in it. What if Hamilton threw the ball just a little further into the crowd? What if he just tossed that particular ball aside? You can't help but ask these painful "what ifs," and Hamilton is likely asking these questions of himself. It's unfair for any man to bear that burden.

Read the full article here.

Radio Clip: NFL, NBA & Expos Coming Back To Montreal

Click here to listen to my radio segment with the Team 1200. We talk 80s TV show, NFL update, NBA lockout and whether Montreal could support an MLB team.

As Per Your Requests...

...here's a link to my review of the Kovalchuk arbitration decision as well as a copy of the actual decision (which is only found here).

No doubt that the deals handed out on July 1 and onward, together with Brian Burke's recent comments, sparked talk of whether these contracts constitute a circumvention of the cap.

My review sets out things to look at when trying to figure out whether a deal equals a circumvention.

Radio Clip: Team 1200 - NHL, NBA, NFL, Clemens and Happy Days Reunion

Click here to listen to my radio clip with JR and Steve from the Team 1200.

We talk a bunch of stuff, including NHL, NBA, NFL and Clemens. We also chat about the Happy Days reunion. This excites me.

Closing The GAAP: How Much Has The NBA Lost?

The NBA claims that its teams combined to lose $300 million last season, and nearly $1 billion over the past 3 years. As well, the NBA contends that 22 of its 30 teams lost money.

On the flip side, the NBPA argues that the NBA has inflated its losses. The players say that if you look at actual money teams lost and don’t take into account creative accounting, losses of $370 million in 2009-10 actually drop to $120 million.

So who’s right? Well both sides.

The NBA has applied generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) principles when determining its losses. That means that they take things like interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization into account when figuring out losses.

Here’s the thing: while they go on the balance sheet, there is little or no economic substance to something like amortization. It does not represent actual money that is going out the door.

And that’s where the players step in saying that the losses are inflated. The players say let’s measure actual cash that is lost. In short, they measure operating profit and not the more creative book profit.

By way of example, the New Jersey Nets claimed losses of $49 million in 2005 and $57.4 million in 2006. However, if you toss aside GAAP principles, the losses drop to just $7.5 million and $17.2M in 2005 and 2006 respectively. So rather than having lost $106.5 million over 2 years, the Nets lost $25 million. The players rightfully argue that this is a pretty substantial difference.

It is important to note that the NBA is not being misleading; they are simply calculating losses in keeping with accepted accounting principles. And the players know that - so they aren’t being misled or confused.

That being said, the NBA is losing money – the issue is just how much. Forbes looked into it and found that 17 of 30 teams were losing money. Forbes also found that 11 of these 17 teams lost less than $8 million annually. Still, though, a loss is a loss is a loss.

Here's the big concern for the NBA: while ratings, interest and fan momentum are on the rise, profitability has gone down. According to Forbes, collective league profitability has fallen over the last 4 seasons. That’s not the sign of a healthy business.

And when that happens, it is clear that the players need to make meaningful concessions.

Why The NHL Won't Lockout in 2012

by Graydon Ebert

This weekend NHL General Managers spent like they were auditioning for Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, despite the fact that there was only one premier talent in the free agent market. This has led many to suggest that the NHL business model is in trouble, if not broken, which in turn might mean fans will see another lockout when the NHL CBA expires at the end of next season.

We at Offside think that the prospect of an NHL lockout as a result of high free agent spending is unlikely.

The first thing to remember is that the players are guaranteed 57% of hockey related revenue. The players get this amount whether the teams sign these contracts or not. Now the concern might be that all these above-market contracts might, in the end, result in the players getting more than their 57%. However, the escrow system ensures that anything the players are paid over their 57% is returned to the NHL. So if the NHL pays the players too much because its projected revenues were too high, it just pulls the difference out of escrow.

What the commentators in the media and the public rightly noticed is that many of the free agent signings were driven by lower market teams who had to spend significant amounts of money that they don’t have to get to the salary floor of $48 million, which is significantly more than the salary cap was when the NHL came out of the lockout. You only need to look at the Florida Panthers who added Brian Campbell, Kris Versteeg and a bunch of mid-level players at above-market contracts despite losing millions of dollars a year to understand what is happening.

However, these signings are not evidence that the financial relationship between the players and the league is broken.

Yes, perhaps the NHL would like to see the players get a smaller share of revenue, but the league as a whole is thriving. The strong Canadian dollar, the NHL’s new TV contract, solid TV ratings and strong attendance in traditional markets have produced continually rising revenues league-wide.

The problem is that this success is not evenly distributed among all the teams. Some teams are doing well and can afford to spend well past the floor. Other teams are really struggling and the CBA requires these struggling teams spend an amount of money on player salaries that is unrealistic given their challenges in generating revenue.

If this seems like a big problem, it's because it is. However, it can and should be addressed without a lockout.

Ultimately, all the players care about is getting their percentage of revenue. How this is proportioned among the teams is not a real concern for them. This gives the NHL the ability to be creative with how it chooses to divide these player costs among the different teams.

One possibility might be to adjust how the salary cap and floor are calculated. In the NHL, the cap and floor are calculated by figuring out the midpoint of player salaries (based on the player’s percentage of league revenues) and then adding $8 million to get the cap number and subtracting $8 million to get the floor. The league could expand this range making the cap significantly higher than the floor, i.e. adding and subtracting 10-15 million. This may have some effect on competitive balance as you’ll have a group of teams spending significantly more than other teams. However, the history of sports is full of teams that spend a lot and finish poorly, and teams with low payrolls that have had significant success through innovative and intelligent approaches to team building. The NHL could also consider lowering the floor significantly but providing revenue sharing and other incentives to poorer teams to spend more on player salaries.

These solutions will have to be collectively bargained so the players will have to agree them. However, if their percentage of revenue is protected and they aren’t making less money, the players should agree to the terms and not force a lockout.

So, while the events of this past weekend should cause some concern for the NHL and cause it to reevaluate the current structure, the idea that a lockout is now imminent is an overreaction.

Comparing CBAs: Revenue Sharing, Salary Caps, Stipends and Quirky Clauses

CBAs are front and centre in sports with the NBA and NFL lockouts, and with the MLB and NHL CBAs coming due.

Last Fall, Offside published a 4 Part Series comparing the CBAs of the major sports. Here are links to these articles if these are of interest:

Part 1 In a Series of Comparing CBAs: Players & Lunch Money

Part 2 In A Series of Comparing CBAs: Show Me The Money - A Primer On Revenue Sharing in the NHL, MLB, NFL & NBA

 

Part 3 in Series Comparing the CBAs: How Does the Salary Cap Work

Part 4 in A Series Comparing the CBAs: Weird & Quirky Clauses

Revenue Sharing Will Be Part of Solution for What Ails the NBA

NBA owners are seeking changes in the financial split of league revenue dedicated to player compensation. In the expiring collective bargaining agreement, players received 57% basketball related income and the NBA wants the number to drop dramatically.

In part, the NBA is arguing that small and mid-market teams can't afford to own a team because salaries are just too high.

As a result, the current system does not allow for the optimal level of competitive balance with big-market owners being able to significantly out-spend mid and small market owners.

It is true that competitive balance and parity are serious issues for the NBA. The past 4 NBA champions were large market teams with some of the league's biggest payrolls: Dallas Mavericks, Los Angeles Lakers (twice) and Boston Celtics.

By way of comparison, in the NFL four of the last five Super Bowl champs were from some of the league's smallest markets: Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Green Bay.

How has the NFL enjoyed an unprecedented level of parity? A big part is revenue sharing.

As part of its robust centralized revenue model, the NFL shares about 80% all revenue from media deals, national sponsorships and merchandise sales.

Economic parity exists in the NFL because teams do not deviate widely in their revenues or costs. About 60% of league revenue is nationally generated and split evenly, with only a 40% window for teams to differentiate their top lines. 

As far as gate receipts, the NFL has a 60/40 policy whereby the home team keeps 60% of gate receipts and gives 40% of receipts to a pool, which is then distributed evenly among the 32 teams. The NFL has the most comprehensive system of shared gate receipts.

What about the NBA you ask? NBA teams share money from national TV contracts and luxury tax funds. They don't share gate receipts. While NBA teams share equally in the league’s national TV rights fees, teams keep 100% of their local television revenues.

Overall, NBA teams shared about $60 million last year. In contrast, the Packers received $147 million in shared revenue in 2009.

The local television deals alone undermine competitive balance. The New Orleans Hornets make $8 million/year off their TV deal, while the Sacramento Kings make $11 million/year and the Portland Trail Blazers make $12 million/year. Portland's deal is worth $120 million over 10 years.  

In stark contrast, the Lakers TV deal is worth $3 billion over 20 years - or $150 a year. That means that one year of the Lakers deal is worth $30 million more than Portland's entire 10 year deal.

The gap between the big and small markets is so large that the NBPA believes it undermines the stability of the NBA and the competitiveness of many of the teams.

It's no wonder the NBPA is saying that revenue sharing is a critical component in addressing what ails the NBA and can play a positive role in reforming the NBA.