Does the NBLPA have a ‘point’?

MELBOURNE (Paulo Kennedy’s View from Downunder) – Here is the conclusion to my column two weeks ago about the NBL Players Association’s (NBLPA) campaign to remove the Player Points Cap (PPC) from Oceania’s premier competition.

The key questions in this debate are does the PPC restrain NBL players’ trade? And is the league in a position where it can discard the PPC without it affecting key factors in its sustainability? Most notably parity and spending on player salaries.

NBLPA President Jacob Holmes was very generous with his time explaining the NBLPA’s point of view.

When I asked for specific examples of players’ trade being restricted by the PPC, he referred to former Brisbane Bullets swingman Mick Hill, a valuable reserve in their 2007 championship team.

Following the 2008 season the Bullets handed back their NBL licence, while the Sydney Kings and Singapore Slingers also dropped out of the competition.

Holmes said Hill's points value was a key factor in his NBL career finishing then and there.

"Clubs just weren’t willing to commit eight points to a player of his level and that’s just a blatant restriction of his trade,” Holmes said.

“It wasn’t due to salary, it wasn’t due to anything except his eight points."

Another example Holmes provided was Australian Boomer and Murcia (Spanish ACB) forward David Barlow, who was recently quoted as saying: "One of the main reasons I would want to come back to Australia is for job security, but the points system takes that security away, makes players with higher ratings at risk of losing their job."

His theory was teams performing poorly might offload players with a high points value so they could overhaul their rosters.

In terms of Hill, the big question is whether it was it the contraction from 13 teams to 10, his approaching 30th birthday and average of 7.8 points at 34% that led to him missing out on a job, or was it his PPC rating?

It could be argued he was incorrectly rated given his poor statistics. That is a case for adjustment, not removal of the system.

With 25-30 less positions for locals from 2008 to 2009, and another two teams dropping out the following year, a large number of players were going to miss out.

Yes, a hypothetical case could be made that without a points system it might have been someone else and not Hill, but are hypothetical 'mights' enough to make a significant overhaul of the way NBL rosters are governed?

In terms of Barlow’s comments, I have thought long and hard, but I cannot recall one local player being dropped because of his high points rating in the history of the system.

There’s no reason for them to, the points rating assigned is based on their statistics. If their numbers drop, so does their rating.

Players who have produced the numbers that earn nine or 10-point ratings are in high demand and get the best contract offers.

The NBLPA have recruited Brendan Schwab, General Secretary of the Australian Athletes Alliance, to help their cause, and earlier in the year he wrote: “a points system effectively involves management grading players and then deciding, based on those grades, who can play for whom and who can earn what.”

Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of how the points system works, and calls into question the NBLPA’s case.

The PPC does not decide “who can earn what”. Clubs pay players what they deem them to be worth in accordance with market value.

There is correlation between PPC ratings and salary, but that is because they are both based on a players’ performance and their value to the team.

So after reading Schwab’s position, Barlow’s comments and listening to Jacob Holmes’ arguments I simply cannot find real examples where the PPC is a restraint of players’ trade.

However, that does not mean the NBL should not listen to what they have to say.

It should never be forgotten that the players are what makes the NBL a high quality and – by world standards – well-supported competition.

If players are genuinely unhappy, it is time to find middle ground. But where is it?

I am particularly impressed by the NBLPA members’ stated willingness to open up their personal finances to scrutiny to help strict enforcement of the salary cap.

This is a serious olive branch reinforcing their belief a well-enforced salary cap is both possible and a genuine alternative to a points system.

To test out this theory, and move towards getting rid of the PPC, the NBLPA should offer to a two-year trial of this with the points cap still in place.

Clear guidelines would be needed stating exactly what would make a successful trial. If they are met that would trigger a new collective bargaining agreement without a PPC.

If they trial is unsuccessful, and the NBL cannot reliably identify payments through this system – a vital requirement to maintain parity and give all teams a chance at sustainability – the onus is on the NBLPA to come up with another system that could work.

From my point of view the biggest issues for the NBL are increasing the number of clubs so there are more than a measly 65 jobs for local players, and ensuring the sustainability of current clubs so there isn't a further reduction in the number of jobs.

Removing the PPC does not help achieve either of those goals, so for mine the onus is on the NBLPA to show how its removal can be achieved in a low-risk way.

If they are prepared to undergo a trial to demonstrate this then I congratulate them. If they will only accept the immediate removal of the PPC I think they are putting their own personal interest ahead of the health of the sport.

Paulo Kennedy

FIBA

FIBA’s columnists write on a wide range of topics relating to basketball that are of interest to them. The opinions they express are their own and in no way reflect those of FIBA.

FIBA takes no responsibility and gives no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of the content and opinion expressed in the above article.