The best arguments of owners and players

After more than 40 meetings, hundreds of hours of talks, and dozens of press conferences, the NBA and the Players Association have made hundreds of different arguments for their respective positions. These are the five strongest points from each side.

Owners	Players
LOSSES: In recent years owners have not only lost money operating their teams, but also in selling them. Bob Johnson, George Shinn, Bruce Ratner, et al ... owners have long been OK with occasional losses, but having little prospect of making that money back in the re-sale is tough. The league simply can't afford to keep losing money as it has.	NOT OUR FAULT: Players are doing what they can do. TV ratings are high and attendance has been good even in a recession. The sport is as popular as ever, thick with likable young stars and poised to keep growing. Meanwhile, the league has spent mightily on GMs, coaches, marketing and international expansion, and non-player costs haven't demonstrated a great return on investment. Also, the Warriors recently sold for $450 million and the Hornets, who have been dealt as bad a hand as any team with a tiny market that has been beset by Hurricane Katrina, even have plenty of potential purchasers.
TOUGH TIMES: The economy stinks. Everyone agrees the NFL is the most profitable sport, and even NFL players just agreed to cuts similar to what NBA players are being asked to accept.	NOT THAT TOUGH: The NBA's economy doesn't stink. Revenues have been up almost every year. And reasonable people agree the mere passage of time -- likely to bring rich new national TV deals in 2016 and ever-increasing international growth -- will solve a lot of problems. Not to mention, league revenues have grown so much recently that owners are enjoying a billion in extra annual revenues -- after player salaries are all paid -- compared to when they made the last CBA.
BOTTOM LINE: Teams ought to function as stand-alone businesses.	HOBBY: Many owners have said on the record that they bought teams for reasons beyond the balance sheet. If they are hobbies, playthings, or loss-leaders ... why must they show profits?
PLAYERS HAVE IT GOOD: No matter what, NBA jobs are good jobs, with the players guaranteed something like $2 billion a season even after cuts.	ENOUGH ALREADY: Compared to the last CBA, the only big concession from either side has been the players' reducing their share of basketball-related income from 57 percent to 52.5 percent, which gives owners more than a billion in extra dollars to spend.
WE CAN FIX THE GAME: Basketball has the least competitive balance of any major American sport. Tweaking the teams' payment system through revenue sharing and a harder cap can help every team have a shot at competing and will make the sport more popular.	PROVE IT: It hasn't worked as advertised in other sports. In the meantime, aren't you mostly worried about controlling individual owners' costs to help resale values? And all these proposed restrictions ... aren't they all about protecting the worlds' sharpest and richest businessmen from making poor decisions? Why do these people need that kind of protection?

Source: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32780/the-best-arguments-of-owners-and-players

Ben Gordon Josh Howard Jason Terry Jason Kidd Dirk Nowitzki Jerry Stackhouse