Does the league have to much power?

December 14, 2011

Political Theory

Recently a trade had been proposed and agreed upon by three teams,
the New Orleans Hornets, Houston Rockets, and the Los Angeles Lakers.

This trade was monumental sending a premier superstar point guard to a large market in LA, New Orleans got Martin, Odom, and Scola, and the Houston received Pau Gasol. This trade was probably one of the biggest trade for all teams, and no one side was losing to much or gaining a significant amount more than the other two teams. The stage was set, the league was buzzing, CP3 paired with Kobe Bryant will be another super team. The New Orleans Hornets had a better than average team which could spring it to once again a playoff contending team who can give any team a run for it’s money. The Houston Rockets received a center that proved to be dominant for many years, and as a hope for a return of that dominance Houston completed this trade.

But wait hold on one second…

If you are unaware New Orleans Hornets has no one owner, but is owned by the league. The league also has the power to refute or let a trade happen. The power of the league in this situation was enormous.

After more than a couple of hours, BREAKING NEWS was on the front page of ESPN. The league has disapproved the trade and it will no longer happen. This brought about the question of whether or not the league had to much power in this trade. Simply put, Chris Paul being a premier superstar point guard was bounded by a league and if the league felt unsatisfied at the decision made by the front office of the New Orleans Hornets, being the owners the league could override any decision. Is the power that the league had to much or was it justified?

Another question ran through my head, why was this trade repealed. I felt as though the trade was balanced and no one got more or less for what they gave up. Certainly, a team had become better, but no one could say that one or two teams had left the trade being a loser. So if from my standpoint at least, the trade was balanced and the trade was “fair” then why did the league later disapprove the trade? Well later on while reading a couple of articles of people agreeing with my stance on the situation, they brought up another interesting point. The New Orleans Hornets were not only losing a great player, but a great asset. Chris Paul being a superstar draws crowds and crowds of people to the arena in New Orleans to watch him play. He is a business asset and from a business standpoint the league felt that the players acquired will not balance the amount of revenue that would be lost. Don’t get the writers wrong here, by no one’s imagination is Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, and Kevin Martin not good players but they are not what you call superstars. They do not bring the crowds of people, because they do not have that extra spectacular nature to there play. Chris Paul will dazzle you and make you marvel at his skills, but the other three players just show you normal, hard-working play.

Coming back to POLISCI 101 earth, I felt as though the whole situation had become a circus. The league had gained all this power being the owner of this franchise who had this amazing player, and the league also had more power because it is the league. The power of the league is almost a monarchist power. They had total control over the situation and ultimately did what they wanted. The players, and the teams involved could not do anything but to hope for a approval and did not get it. What makes the league unable to repeal other trades now? The anger shown towards the league by many sportswriters has been evident, and has been shown by players also. The union had ideas to sue the league and had fallen short, so what can stop this mega giant in this seeking of trade for this superstar.

Do you think the power of the league is to great in this situation? Or is the power asserted by the league okay with you?

Just a quick update, the league after negotiating with the LA Clippers have come to terms, and are receiving a bunch of quality players for CP3.
The league has seen the value of these players and because they liked it, the approval had come. Only if the league was satisfied would this trade have gone through, and has gone through.


About ywjpeter

polisci 101

View all posts by ywjpeter


Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

2 Comments on “Does the league have to much power?”

  1. andgoldberg Says:

    I think the NBA has way too much power. The first offer the Lakers made to the Hornets was a completely fair trade that would have (as you said) put New Orleans back in playoff contention and made the Lakers even more interesting to watch. The league needs to realize that teams get good fan attendance and respect when they win games. The more and more a team wins, the more fans they will get. The league will realize their actions after the end of this season. The Clippers will turn out to be a mediocre team bringing in solid fans because of Chris Paul, but the Hornets will remain a financial burden.

  2. acicurel Says:

    The NBA commissioner has too much power. The fact is that David stern exercises his control to strongly even when he is not dealing with the team he basically owns. The league owning a team is about as big of a conflict of interests as I can imagine. The Hornets basically now operate in the best interests of the other teams in the league. David Stern should never have become involved in the trade. The idea when they bought the team was to set a budget and step back. Obviously, this did not happen. This in addition to the complete failure to make a CBA in time to prevent games being canceled shows that David Stern needs to go and the new commissioner and league office need to take a more friendly approach to their employees, the players.

%d bloggers like this: