NBA Lockout: Can Stephon Marbury Really Criticize Michael Jordan?

There have been numerous people eager to offer their opinions concerning the NBA's labor issues, but one of the most interesting and curious perspectives may have come from former league player Stephon Marbury.

Kelly Dwyer's "Ball Don't Lie" blog on Yahoo! Sports recently reported that Marbury shot a string of negative tweets in Charlotte Bobcats' owner Michael Jordan's direction, which has become the norm considering Jordan's hard-line approach to the league's salary structure negotiations.

Jordan has become the symbolic head of the league's take-it-or-leave-it stance toward the players, which is considered the ultimate hypocrisy when you consider Jordan's stance during the NBA lockout of 1998.

That tense period eventually led to a shortened 50-game regular season, and Jordan famously told former Washington Wizards owner Abe Pollin that he should sell his team if he couldn't make a profit.

The same Jordan who was the first NBA player to ever sign a $30 million contract is the same owner who is now stringently in favor of a labor deal that would limit the players to 47 percent of basketball-related income, even after the players have basically agreed to a 50-50 split?

Even though Marbury is no longer in the NBA it's understandable that he sides with the players on this issue, but his incendiary comments about Jordan have to be taken with a grain of salt.

According to Dwyer's blog, Marbury reportedly tweeted that Jordan has never been with the real, and he also called him "Michael Fake Jordan" and relegated him to the status of a regular dude.

I can understand the player's anger with Jordan's position, but I also know that Jordan is approaching this situation in the same manner he approached games on the NBA hardwood.

Unfortunately, Jordan's competitive edge to date has served him much better on the court than it has off it.

Kwame Brown, anyone?

Jordan's icy stance in labor negotiations may just be an effort to correct the mistakes he made as a general manager for the Wizards, even more so when you consider the promise he made to the city of Charlotte when he became the first player to ever become a majority owner.

I was born and raised in Charlotte and reside there today, and I will never forget Jordan's promise to make the Bobcats a consistent, competitive franchise.

However, under the league's current financial structure that's almost impossible.

A city like Charlotte will never be able to compete with Los Angeles, Chicago or New York when it comes to coveted advertising and marketing dollars, so Jordan is understandably trying to level the playing field—and make good on his promise.

Jordan's desire to succeed might be the most chronicled sports story in history, and it's also a well-known fact that His Airness doesn't mind throwing a few elbows along the way.

For Jordan the shoe is definitely on the other foot, but unlike his stint in Washington Jordan's own financial future is directly linked to his team's success, so what other response would you expect from one of the most driven individuals the world has ever known?

Still, that doesn't mean what's good for the Bobcats is good for the league, and Marbury's words do hold some merit—sort of.

Marbury is correct when he points out Jordan's hypocrisy, but I didn't notice him turning down any of the NBA's money and, in fact, he could very well be considered a poster child of the league's ills today.

I'm not sure what Marbury's last big-money NBA contract amounted to, but I'm sure it was for more than he was worth.

And that is what really drives me crazy about the NBA labor impasse.

All of these grown men are making more money than most regular people can dream of, and yet they still come to us expecting empathy?

Making millions playing a game is bad enough, but to look at the public and expect us to commiserate on your inability to divide millions is just stupid.

And when you throw in today's economic climate it makes the NBA's dispute even worse.

Putting food on the table and paying the electric bill is probably a little more important than the Lakers-Spurs game that would have been played tonight, and pretty soon even the most hardcore NBA fan will see that.

Jordan's stance may be admirable and Marbury's views may be valid, but in the end we ultimately lose,  because we will still pay to watch an inferior product,—much like the shortened season of 1999—and the beers will still cost $10 a pop.