NBA Lockout: Why Fans Should Give Commissioner David Stern a Break

The war of attrition the we know as the NBA lockout has unfolded like a hotly contested playoff series.  There have been wins and losses and with these results, we will find heroes and goats. 

Public opinion has swayed, with fans claiming that either owners or players are more at fault than the other. Did the LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh union in South Beach spark the lockout?  Have the owners who have lost money in recent years simply mismanaged their franchises and are now looking for a bail out? Was it Carmelo Anthony's trade to the New York Knicks that was the final straw?

One thing seems universal, however: Everyone blames NBA Commissioner David Stern.

Stern has drawn the fury of fans worldwide. Many claim that Commissioner Stern is pompous, arrogant and unfair—some are even labeling him a tyrant or worse.

However, the reality is that Stern may be the most under-appreciated figure in professional sports.

David Stern began his work with the League in 1978 and became Executive Vice President in 1980. He had a major role in implementing the salary cap structure used today and was instrumental in creating the NBA policy that curbed the rampant drug use present in the early '80s.

Stern took on the role of NBA Commissioner in 1984, succeeding Larry O'Brien. His promotion coincided with the famous draft of 1984, which produced future superstars Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon and John Stockton. 

Over the past 27 years, Stern has used his gift for marketing to promote the NBA like no other professional American sport. He has embraced the international market by sanctioning the 1992 Dream Team, capitalizing on the popularity of NBA immortals Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, while introducing the world to other NBA elites. Stern has continued to piggyback on that success, placing exhibitions and camps all over the world to promote his product.

Stern's impact is quite obvious when it comes to his bosses' bottom line.

To say that Stern turned the NBA around would be an understatement. Since 1984, the NBA's revenue has increased by 500 percent—quite a difference from the time when at least 17 teams were suffering from financial losses.

Stern has been described as heavy-handed when it comes to players and, at times, that could be true. He has been criticized for imposing a dress code in the NBA in 2005, with opponents saying the rule was an attack on urban culture. His newest technical foul guidelines have frustrated fans and players alike.

The anti-player critique, however, is far from reality.

NBA athletes are the highest-paid players in American sports, making, on average, over $5 million dollars per season. The cap system initiated by Stern in the '80s created exceptions, so players are still able to maximize their earnings while still adhering to a "soft cap."

No other sport has marketed the individual quite like the NBA, creating a superstar culture in professional basketball. While Major League Baseball and the National Football League continue to struggle with ways to promote their stars, NBA players are far more recognizable and identifiable. This can be directly attributed to Stern's marketing strategies over the years.

Stern's critics contend that his presence has been the reason for multiple lockouts in the NBA, but let's actually look at the results of the labor disputes.

The NBA locked out its players in 1998, citing a need for changes in the system. The season was truncated to a 50-game schedule due to the clash. Mass opinion was that the players were huge losers in the 1998 CBA, with a maximum salary being created. 

The reality, however, was that both parties came up winners. The changes created a huge middle class throughout the league, providing financial security for most members while creating guidelines for owners to set their payrolls.

The 1998 lockout also yielded a rookie wage scale. The wage scale allotted a concrete pay rate for incoming rookies. The scale is important in allocating money to players with a proven track record of accomplishment and not filling cap space with unproven players that may not be able to contribute on an NBA level.  

This is in contrast to the NFL, as the highest-grossing professional football league only approved a rookie wage scale this past summer. This comes a full decade after the NBA established its scale.

While there was no lockout in 2005, the Collective Bargaining Agreement ratified then is important to note. The changes were few, but important: The players were awarded a higher percentage of basketball-related income and a rookie age limit was established. The B.R.I. adjustment is a definite win for the players that are allegedly so adverse to Commissioner Stern.  

The age limit has been beneficial for both sides. For the players, it helps provide more jobs for established veterans who were finding themselves losing out to unproven high schoolers. The owners benefited by not having to gamble and pay players who had never played on a big stage. The age restriction gave them a chance to evaluate players among other top college talent.

This brings us to the 2011 lockout, where Stern is receiving the harshest criticism, as many believe that Stern is driving the hard-line, 50/50 split the owners have taken. 

Consider, however, that the latest owner proposal is much different than the one first submitted. The drastic salary cuts are gone. The elimination of guaranteed contracts is gone. The proposed "hard cap" is gone. Are we to assume Stern had no role in softening ownership's stance?

David Stern has no dog in this fight. He does not own the NBA and is an employee of ownership. Yes, he represents the owners, but has no power to assert on a group of billionaires that cannot agree on a way to turn a profit.

Comparisons to the NFL's Roger Goodell and his actions during their lockout are only natural, but one must understand that the strength of the ownership group when compared to the player's association is far greater in the NFL. The players have no guaranteed contracts, a hard cap and the shortest career span of all major sports. They had zero leverage and were doomed from the start. Most importantly, revenue sharing assured that every team came home with a profit.

As he has proven time and time again, David Stern is not pro-owner or pro-player; David Stern is pro-NBA.  

Does he have an ego?  Who knows, but one thing is for sure: This lockout may have different ramifications for the other parties, but it only hurts Stern's legacy. So why would you think he is perpetuating it?