Kobe Bryant Scoffs at Hometown Discounts as a 'Coup' Against Players
Kobe Bryant isn't about to pat Dirk Nowitzki on the back.
More pointedly, Bryant won't ever placate NBA owners by accepting a hometown discount or below-market contract.
"It's the popular thing to do," Bryant said of player pay cuts ahead of the Los Angeles Lakers' Friday night matchup against the Dallas Mavericks, per ESPNDallas.com's Tim McMahon. "The player takes less, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I think it's a big coup for the owners to put players in situations where public perception puts pressure on them to take less money. Because if you don't, then you get criticized for it."
Hometown discounts and reduced pay have become mighty popular in recent years.
The Miami Heat's Big Three took (slightly) less to join forces in 2010; Nowitzki accepted a three-year, $25 million deal to remain in Dallas, despite fielding max-contract offers from the Lakers and Houston Rockets, according to ESPN.com's Marc Stein; and Yahoo Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski says contract-extension talks between fourth-year guard Jimmy Butler and the Chicago Bulls broke down because the former wouldn't acquiesce to the latter's request for a hometown discount.
Bryant himself has also been widely criticized for the two-year, $48.5 million extension he signed with the Lakers last season. Some have painted him as selfish and greedy for not taking less so the Lakers could enjoy more financial flexibility moving forward.
"So did I take a discount? Yeah," Bryant said. "Did I take as big a discount as some of you fans would want me to? No. Is it a big enough discount to help us be a contender? Yeah."
The 36-year-old has a point here. The Lakers could have still added a superstar this past summer, and they'll have enough cap space to sign one this upcoming offseason while footing the bill for Bryant, per ShamSports.
Criticism of his deal often fails to recognize the business side of player-team relationships as well.
Owners aren't selling teams at a discount. The NBA also signed a nine-year, $24 billion television deal with ESPN and Turner Sports. If the league isn't selling itself short financially, why would the players?
Michele Roberts, the NBA Players Association's executive director, has made it her mission to address player salaries since assuming her post. She firmly lands in Bryant's camp, as someone who isn't for capping earning potential or, for that matter, having players take less money.
"Why don't we have the owners play half the games?" Roberts said when arguing her case to ESPN The Magazine's Pablo S. Torre. "There would be no money if not for the players."
Besides some of the NBA's superstars being irreplaceable from a branding standpoint, players like Bryant also have to ask themselves: What will this pay cut actually do for my team?
Like NBA writer Andrew Ungvari points out, discounted deals don't always translate into success:
There is no guarantee a smaller contract attracts additional talent. To believe the Lakers would have landed a superstar free agent over the summer had Bryant taken less is dangerously presumptuous.
In the end, the only party promised to gain anything from player cuts is ownership. Not only do they save money, but what they do with those savings is up to them.
Complicated still, perception tends to be on their side. People aren't congratulating Carmelo Anthony for taking a nine-figure deal from the New York Knicks; they're wondering why he didn't accept less to chase championships with the Bulls or Rockets.
But how many of you readers would take less money so your bosses could save a few dollars?
Exactly.
That doesn't mean Bryant terming the concept of pay cuts a "coup" for owners is irrefutably accurate. More money is at play here than most places. At the same time, the money is relative to the field, and Bryant's comments are a reminder that the NBA is more than a sporting entity.
It's a business.
And because it's a business, this will remain a problem. The players will fight for their money; the owners will contend for theirs. Fans, meanwhile, can only hope they're not the ones forced to pay dearly for this issue—the price being a future lockout.
