[The Athletic] 为什么文班亚马的降薪续约会让球员工会呼吁修改第二土豪线规则 ▶️

TheAthletic · 2026 年7 月 11 日 11:00

By Jared Weiss | The Athletic, 2026-07-11 10:00:50

当维克托·文班亚马 (Victor Wembanyama) 在法国的家中落笔签字时，他瞬间跻身超级富豪的行列。只不过，他本可以变得更加富有。

周五，在承载着他过去回忆的旧物、昭示着他未来的象征以及他职业生涯关键人物的环绕下，文班亚马签下了他的下一份马刺合同。据因未获授权讨论交易财务条款而要求匿名的联盟消息人士透露，这是一份为期五年、占工资帽25%的提前续约合同，预计总额将达到2.52亿美元。

文班亚马原本也有资格获得超级顶薪条款，如果他在下赛季斩获MVP、年度最佳防守球员（DPOY）或入选最佳阵容，他的起薪将提升至工资帽的30%（这五年期间预计总额将达到3.01亿美元）。考虑到他刚刚成为NBA历史上首位全票当选的年度最佳防守球员，下赛季他实际上只需要出战至少65场比赛，就能稳稳拿到这笔额外的薪水。

但他放弃了这个机会，因为他心中有着更宏大的目标：帮助马刺队保留这支年轻的阵容。

“积累财富从来都不是我的真正目标，”文班亚马在上赛季曾这样说道。

落笔签字 pic.twitter.com/bWu2sudRRt

— 圣安东尼奥马刺 (@ spurs) 2026年7月10日

在圣安东尼奥，这是一个动人的故事，文班亚马用实际行动践行了他所说过的“赢球高于一切”的承诺。但在NBA球员工会（NBPA）看来，这却是另一个典型的例子，证明了第二土豪线（second apron）正在向明星球员施压，迫使他们在“拿满身价”和“保留球队阵容”之间做出艰难抉择。

“我们的立场是，现行体系不应该要求球员去承担所有这些负担，”即将上任的球员工会执行董事大卫·凯利 (David Kelly) 在周五的媒体见面会上表示，当时文班亚马续约的细节尚未公开。“它不应该让球员陷入必须通过牺牲个人利益来维持球队完整的境地。如果一个体系做到了这一点，那说明我们的规则出了问题。”

文班亚马做出这一决定的背景是，各支球队正越来越多地将第二土豪线（下赛季设定在略低于2.22亿美元）视为事实上的硬工资帽。就在几天前，曾与杰森·塔图姆 (Jayson Tatum) 联手率领波士顿凯尔特人夺得2024年NBA总冠军并在过去十年中保持长盛不衰的杰伦·布朗 (Jaylen Brown)，被交易到了死敌费城76人，换回的筹码令人大失所望，令业内许多人感到震惊。在被要求解释这一举动时，凯尔特人总裁布拉德·史蒂文斯 (Brad Stevens) 表示，超出第二土豪线的惩罚实在太严重了，不能让“我们70%的薪资空间和如此高比例的使用率都绑定在两名球员身上”。

文班亚马并不是这个时代第一个做出经济牺牲的球星。2024年，杰伦·布伦森 (Jalen Brunson) 提前一年与尼克斯队签下了续约合同，在此过程中，他在新合同的前三年里放弃了大约3700万美元。这为尼克斯队腾出了空间，得以引进并留住OG·阿奴诺比 (OG Anunoby) 和米卡尔·布里奇斯 (Mikal Bridges)，这两位球员在上个月刚刚帮助尼克斯队击败文班亚马领衔的马刺队，夺得总冠军。

如今，文班亚马也做出了类似的举动，放弃了在五年内多赚5000万美元奖金的机会，以帮助他那本就阵容深厚的球队保持完整。

但鉴于像凯尔特人这样的球队将第二土豪线作为放弃巅峰期球星的理由，球员工会领导层担心，劳资协议（CBA）已经给其成员造成了不必要的压力。

“如果你被一支球队选中，并且达到了这些指标——入选最佳阵容或其他荣誉，从而让你有资格拿到特定比例的工资帽薪水，这最终反而会被外界视为一种负面因素，”休斯敦火箭队后卫兼球员工会主席弗雷德·范弗里特 (Fred VanVleet) 在周五表示。“无论事实是否如此，现在的体系让球队可以利用所有这些限制条款，作为不保留阵容的借口。”

在圣安东尼奥，为了球队利益而接受降薪是一种早于当前经济环境就已存在的球队文化。众所周知，蒂姆·邓肯 (Tim Duncan) 在30多岁时曾签下低于市场价值的合同，以便马刺队能够负担得起比竞争对手更深厚的阵容。他的经济牺牲最终促成了他在2014年夺得个人第五座总冠军。

“这就是全部的意义所在。我真的不在乎谁拿多少钱，”邓肯在整整十年前（2016年）接受ViVid Streaming采访时说道，据ESPN报道。“老实说，我每年都不知道别人拿多少薪水。我认为那是最好的心态。”

与此同时，目前的马刺队面临着年轻基石斯蒂芬·卡斯尔 (Steph Castle) 和迪伦·哈珀 (Dylan Harper) 在未来两个休赛期寻求各自顶薪提前续约合同的前景，这将使马刺队的薪资总额急剧膨胀。文班亚马深知，将这三人组保留在一起，可以让马刺在未来许多年里成为联盟中最强大的球队，甚至可能让他们保持足够的实力，去终结NBA连续八年没有球队成功卫冕的历史纪录。

凯利和其他球员工会领导人认为，现行体系应该做出改变，这样文班亚马就不必做出这种妥协。在周五长达40分钟的新闻发布会上，凯利呼吁联盟在2028年10月15日（即NBA或球员选择跳出现行劳资协议的截止日期）之前，尽早开始探索放宽第二土豪线限制的方法。他支持史蒂文斯在同一场新闻发布会上提出的一项建议：允许球队向符合超级顶薪资格的球员支付全额超级顶薪，但在计算工资帽时，这些合同只按25%的比例计入。

“我们确实认为，在围绕第二土豪线的某些问题上，这非常合理，无论是针对选秀选中的球员，还是针对某些球员的伯德条款（Bird exception），”凯利说。“我认为，保持球队阵容完整的能力将有助于提升球迷的兴趣，同时仍然允许球员流动，但能让球员自己决定是否留在他们想留的地方。”

然而，除非这种情况发生，否则文班亚马想要追平甚至超越邓肯五冠伟业的最大希望，或许就是像现在这样分享自己的财富。

“马刺大家庭，我会一直留在这里，”文班亚马周五在X上写道。“不惜一切代价。”

由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。

查看原文：Why Victor Wembanyama's hometown discount has NBPA calling for second-apron changes

Why Victor Wembanyama’s hometown discount has NBPA calling for second-apron changes

When Victor Wembanyama’s pen glided across the page in front of him at his home in France, he became an incredibly rich man. Just not quite as wealthy as he could’ve been.

On Friday, as relics of his past, nods to his future and the key figures of his professional life surrounded him, Wembanyama signed his next Spurs contract. It’s a five-year extension for 25 percent of the salary cap, projected to come in at $252 million, according to league sources who were not authorized to discuss the financial terms of the deal.

Wembanyama was also entitled to receive the supermax clause, which could have raised his salary to 30 percent of the cap (a projected $301 million over those five years) if he wins MVP, Defensive Player of the Year or makes an All-NBA team next season. Considering he had just become the NBA’s first unanimous defensive player of the year, all he’d effectively need to do to earn that extra salary is play at least 65 games next season.

He passed up that chance because he had something bigger in mind: helping the Spurs keep this young team together.

“Accumulating money has never really been a goal,” Wembanyama said last season.

Putting pen to paper pic.twitter.com/bWu2sudRRt

— San Antonio Spurs (@ spurs) July 10, 2026

In San Antonio, this is a lovely story of Wembanyama proving everything he has said about prioritizing winning above all else. But to the NBA Players Association, this is another example of the second apron applying pressure on star players to choose between getting paid what they’re worth and keeping their teams together.

“Our position would be that the system should not require a player to carry all that burden,” incoming NBPA executive director David Kelly said at his introductory press conference Friday, just before the details of Wembanyama’s extension became public. “It should not put a player in a position where he has to carry the burden in order to keep a team together. A system that does that, we have a problem.”

Wembanyama’s decision comes amid the backdrop of teams increasingly using the second-apron threshold, set at just under $222 million next season, as a de facto hard cap. Days ago, Jaylen Brown, who had teamed with Jayson Tatum to lead the Boston Celtics to an NBA title in 2024 and consistent success over the last decade, was traded to the rival Philadelphia 76ers for a disappointing return that stunned many within the sport. When asked to explain the move, Celtics president Brad Stevens said the penalties for exceeding the second apron were too punitive to have “70 percent of our cap and such a high percent of our usage tied into two players.”

Wembanyama is not the first star of this era to make a financial sacrifice. In 2024, Jalen Brunson signed an extension with the Knicks a year earlier than he could have, foregoing around $37 million in the first three years of his new deal in the process. That opened the door for the Knicks to acquire and retain OG Anunoby and Mikal Bridges, both of whom helped push the Knicks to a title over Wembanyama’s Spurs last month.

Now, Wembanyama has done something similar, giving up the chance to earn a $50 million bonus over five years to help his already deep team remain together.

But in light of teams like the Celtics citing the second apron as a reason to jettison stars in their prime, NBPA leadership is concerned the CBA has created undue pressure on its members.

“If you get drafted to a team and you make these benchmarks, All-NBA, whatever the case may be, and that takes you to a certain percentage of the cap, it ends up being a perception of a negative,” Houston Rockets guard and NBPA president Fred VanVleet said Friday. “Whether it actually is or not, there’s systems in place now for the teams to use all of these buffers against a reason to keep the team together.”

In San Antonio, taking less for the good of the team is an ethos that preceded this financial climate. Tim Duncan notably signed below-market contracts in his mid-30s so the Spurs could afford to pay for a deeper roster than their peers. His financial sacrifices led to his fifth championship in 2014.

“That’s all it was about. I don’t really care who was making what,” Duncan said almost 10 years ago to the day in a 2016 interview with ViVid Streaming, per ESPN. “Honest truth is I didn’t really know from year to year what people were making. I think that was the best perspective to have.”

The current Spurs, meanwhile, face the prospect of young building blocks Steph Castle and Dylan Harper seeking their own maximum contract extensions in the next two offseasons that will balloon the Spurs’ payroll. Wembanyama knows that keeping that trio together could make them the best team in the league for years to come and, perhaps, allow them to maintain enough talent to end the NBA’s record streak of eight straight champions without a repeat.

Kelly and other NBPA leaders believe the system should change so Wembanyama wouldn’t have to make that choice. During a 40-minute news conference Friday, Kelly advocated for the league to start exploring ways to soften the second apron well before the Oct. 15, 2028, deadline for the NBA or its players to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement. He supported an idea Stevens brought up in that same news conference that would allow teams to pay players a full maximum contract with supermax eligibility, but only have those deals count as 25 percent of the salary cap.

“We actually think that makes sense around certain issues around the second apron, whether it’s drafted players, whether it’s a Bird exception for certain players,” Kelly said. “The ability to keep teams together, I think, will help fan interest and will still allow for player movement, but allow players to have the decision of staying where they want to stay.”

Unless that happens, though, Wembanyama’s best hope of matching or even exceeding Duncan’s five championships may be to spread his own wealth.

“Spurs family, I’m here to stay,” Wembanyama posted to X Friday. “Whatever it takes.”

By Jared Weiss, via The Athletic

TheAthletic · 2026 年7 月 11 日 12:50

热评

Brian S.:

球员工会（NBPA）是不懂工资帽是怎么运作的吗？作为超级巨星，你必须少拿点钱，球队才能变得更好。
文班依然能拿到2.5亿美元，他又饿不死。其他同样是球员工会成员的球员，也能够留在一支优秀的球队并拿到薪水。这是件好事，他们不用非得去奇才队了。

Ted L.:

@Brian S. 同意。而要给球星“减压”的唯一办法，就是取消工资帽，或者严重削弱超帽的惩罚。当然，更高的薪水不会从老板的腰包里出。它们会通过尽可能榨干球迷的每一分钱来买单——比如更高的票价、更多的广告、更多的博彩，天知道还有什么。这种“贪得无厌的病症”正在全面肆虐。

Curtis R.:

无论给球员发多少薪水，老板们都会尽其所能地向球迷收取高额票价等费用，以实现收入最大化。说是球员薪水推高了球迷的消费成本，这完全是本末倒置。正是因为我们愿意花钱花时间，才抬高了那些吸引我们注意力的球员的身价。

Erik S.:

@Brian S. 工会在这里关心的并不是单个球员自愿降薪。他们担心的是，大合同被球队视为“垃圾合同”（包袱），从而导致球队根本不再开出大合同。尽管本文的焦点是文班，但这其实更多是关于布朗的事。

Justin B.:

@Ted L. 我觉得没有任何一个老板会在阵容成本降低时降价，把省下来的钱让利给球迷……

Ted L.:

@Curtis R. 额。球员和老板在这件事上都起到了作用。没错，老板想要更多。但球员们也不是被硬拽着、哭喊着去签更大的合同的。他们也没有因为球迷要花更多钱而哭泣，并乞求克制。

Brian S.:

@Erik S. 大合同之所以成为包袱……是因为有工资帽的存在，这又不是什么新鲜事。

jerod A.:

@Ted L. 那你为什么不对亿万富翁老板们的“贪得无厌”大喊大叫呢？为什么非要让那些真正为联盟创造收入的球员少拿钱，好让他们的球队更有竞争力，这责任凭什么全由球员来承担？

Lucas A.:

@Brian S. 严格从劳工角度来看，球员工会对这一举动感到有些恼火是有道理的。如果这是在其他任何行业，而不是一个员工起薪就高达六位数的行业，工会早就把这个为了公司价值而接受更低薪水的人撕成碎片了。
然而，这是职业篮球，而文班即将成为自斯蒂芬·库里 (Steph Curry) 以来最具商业价值的篮球运动员。如果说有谁能通过少拿钱来帮助球队，同时又不会在经济上受到任何实质影响，那非他莫属。此外，这更像是球员工会试图利用这种情况，来迫使各方对第二土豪线进行更广泛的讨论，因为第二土豪线起到了硬工资帽的作用，因此本质上是反劳工的。这就是他们首先提到第二土豪线的原因。

A C.:

@Brian S. 感觉球员工会纯粹是在无事生非。
“天哪！文班只赚了2.5亿，而不是3.3亿！这不对！我们应该能够规避工资帽，因为每个人都应该有权赚到最多的钱，***并且***身边还能有一支伟大的球队！”

Guilherme P.:

@Brian S. 你完全没看懂这篇文章的重点。当雇主没有放弃利益时，为什么压力会落在*球员*身上去放弃金钱？老板们开始分出利润份额了吗？

Connie A.:

@Guilherme P. 但这些钱只是会被重新分配给其他球员。文班不拿那额外的5000万，是为了让他队里的其他球员能拿到这笔钱。

Jim C.:

@jerod A. 这么多年来，老板和球员之间的分成比例大致保持不变。而且这个比例很公平。工资帽和土豪线所做的，是在经济上让顶薪球员与低薪球员对立起来。

Jim C.:

@Guilherme P. 压力并不在“球员”身上。无论如何，“球员”整体上拿走了50%的分成。这只是钱如何在球员之间分配的问题，而文班决定为了更强大的球队而放弃个人利益。其他人有不同的选择，但在这个问题上，并不是雇主与球员的对抗。

Connie A.:

@Curtis R. 这是体育迷对商业最普遍的误解之一。
薪水绝对会影响定价。并非所有情况都是如此，但确实会。一些老板/企业采用“成本加成”模式，试图获得特定的利润*率*。如果投入成本上升（球员薪水就是其中之一），那么面向消费者的价格（包括票价和特许商品/餐饮成本）也可能会上涨，以维持预期的投资回报率。
奇怪的是，在支持劳方对抗球队老板时，每个人突然都变成了纯粹的市场资本主义者。

Anonymous U.:

虽然做出改变可能会有用，但永远值得记住的是，运动员在大多数情况下确实会选择贪婪而不是胜利。在赢球之前，有一种“先拿到我那份”的心态，这没问题，但这是一个选择。在人的一生中，1.8亿美元和1.6亿美元的差距是微不足道的，钱越多越是如此。如果他们愿意，每个NBA球星只要签下第一份任何薪资水平的续约合同，就能拥有延续到血脉尽头的世代财富。
我们很容易抽离出来并意识到，任何经验水平的单份NBA底薪合同，都远远超过了绝大多数美国人一生的收入。在千万富翁与亿万富翁的对决中，很难去支持哪一方。如果一个运动员想确保自己能买一艘更大的游艇，而不是去赢球，那我真的对这种抗争不感兴趣。如果我们非要宣扬一个新秀在4年赚1000万美元的同时还拿着微薄的薪水、基本上快破产了，那我真想给他们看看我工作20年的工资单。
我也不在乎老板们在这个庞大商业帝国里的抱怨。你不想花钱赢球，我同样对这种抗争不感兴趣。你需要在比赛中靠20美元的啤酒和10美元的热狗每年赚取2亿美元的利润？也许该看看你创造的是一个什么样的系统，在这个系统里，无论在场上还是场下，球迷都无足轻重。
每个人都需要把调门降低几个档次。老板赚得太多、想要得太多，球员索要得也太多。而球迷只能被迫承受看球成本不断上涨的“饕餮盛宴”——要么是转播机构竞标价达到上一份合同的3倍（这会尽其所能地提高服务价格），要么是门票价格持续攀升。
恭喜文班，他身边的任何人都再也不用为钱发愁了，但其实他的新秀合同就已经做到了这一点，所以这并不能真正让我觉得他是一个多么无私的人。这永远与钱无关，但绝对与钱有关。只是游艇稍微小了一点，也许只有2层而不是3层。

Kris M.:

同意……在这个体系中，球员和老板都有代言人，但球迷没有。收钱的人不在乎谁买票，只要有人买就行。这正在把体育运动从一项社区活动变成一项特权活动，这真是一种遗憾。

Johnny W.:

@Anonymous U. 你在自己的工作中也会应用同样的逻辑吗？如果你的公司财务困难，你会为了“团队的利益”而降薪吗？每个人都有权使自己的收入最大化，而不是去告诉别人“买一辆便宜点的车/游艇，或者买个小一点的房子”。

Jack S.:

@Johnny W. 强尼，我支持Anonymous和Kris。有些球员把赢球放在第一位。球员工会（以及经纪人）把总收入放在第一位。我们其他人则希望这种垄断受到监管，这样该体系就不会允许少数人在牺牲公众利益的情况下变得极其富有。这与在这个“新强盗大亨”时代全国范围内展开的争论是一样的。天哪，也许在过度行为出现时对其进行监管并不是个坏主意。

Ryan J.:

@Johnny W. 当讨论的资金确实影响到生活质量时，这个论点就站不住脚了。2.5亿美元还是3亿美元，并不会改变你能不能把食物摆上餐桌的能力。

Nathan M.:

但这个争论不仅关乎顶尖球员，它还影响到处于金字塔底端的所有其他球员。拿底薪合同的球员才是牺牲最大的人。当然，他们赚得还是比你我都多，但他们理应拥有发言权。记住，那些在利用球员劳动获利后开出支票的人，才是这个故事里真正的反派。

B S.:

@Ryan J. “当讨论的资金确实影响到生活质量时，这个论点就站不住脚了”——所以，你是在帮亿万富翁老板说话，而不是百万富翁球员？显然，联盟的受欢迎程度是由老板们推动的，那才是人们花钱看的表演，比如看鲍尔默坐在场边……

Tracy B.:

@Anonymous U. 文班所做的，正是汤姆·布雷迪 (Tom Brady) 一只手戴不下所有总冠军戒指的真正原因。

Don R.:

@Anonymous U. 我同意这个观点，即不在乎老板与NBA精英阶层球员（库里、詹姆斯、亚历山大、文班）之间的斗争。当工会抱怨这些家伙的薪水时，他们完全是搞错了重点。
如果工会真的在为绝大多数成员代言，它应该去谈判争取更高的底薪，并降低最顶尖球员的顶薪上限。

Kris M.:

没有人*必须*接受更低的薪水。但这也不必成为每个球员唯一的首要任务。出于各种原因，很多人选择的工作并不是他们能拿到的最高薪水的工作。如果一个球员真的更看重赢球，而不是最后那5%的薪水，这是一个自由的国家。既然每个人都这么说，那么能看到谁是真心实意的，感觉挺好。
这并不是说我更希望老板拿到这笔钱。正如我所说，我更希望普通球迷的看球成本能低一些。

Thomas C.:

无意讽刺，2.5亿美元是个负担？读到这里的任何人，有谁会觉得这笔钱砸在自己头上不合适吗？这种脱离群众的程度简直令人难以置信。
我们当中又有谁不会为了享受赢球的满足和喜悦，同时让队友的生活过得更好，而“牺牲”那额外的5%呢？
我们都在做出权衡，以平衡对我们重要的事情。在这种情况下，这种平衡对NBA球员来说是双赢——字面意义上的双赢。对此进行抱怨，其贪婪程度超出了我的想象，然而在失控的美国，这却出奇地普遍。

Yossi R.:

@Thomas C. 所以，亿万富翁再买一艘游艇是可以接受的，而为他们赚钱的人却因为强制性的薪资压制而不得不接受降薪？

Thomas C.:

@Yossi R. 绝对不是。正如我所暗示的，我认为这是一个社会问题，绝不限于球员工会。

Erik S.:

@Thomas C. 如果你觉得贪婪令人震惊，天哪，那我关于老板们有些坏消息要告诉你了。

Scott M.:

是的，这句话真的雷到我了：“它不应该让球员处于这样一种境地：他必须承担起维持球队团结的重担。”
啥玩意？那到底该由谁来承担这个重担？这是一门生意。有工资帽限制。当然，如果球员想留在原地，并享受一支均衡、能赢球的球队，他们就需要做出妥协。别再这么贪得无厌了。
这又不是70年代的ABA。球员工会只是在无事生非，因为他们有这个能力。他们这是在杀鸡取卵……

jerod A.:

@Scott M. 你真的在说“到底该由谁来承担这个重担”和“别再这么贪婪了”吗？你甚至没有想到，也许应该由老板而不是劳动者来承担这个重担？谈论贪婪却把亿万富翁排除在讨论之外，真是可笑。
老板和联盟建立了一个越来越疏远球迷的体系，但他们不在乎，因为他们正专注于在欧洲扩张。如果说有人在杀鸡取卵，那也是他们。

Anonymous U.:

@Scott M. “有工资帽限制”这句话对你来说挺好使。取消工资帽，把所有收入汇集起来，让老板们为赢球买单。没有任何一个富人会因为拥有一支NBA球队而亏钱，因为资产增值的速度总是快于任何运营亏损。而且这门“生意”是NBA——各支球队在经济上并不是竞争对手。
我花钱买门票、买特许餐饮、买League Pass，并忍受着眼前没完没了的州立农业保险（State Farm）和壮阳药广告，可不是为了看金融大佬、房地产大亨和富二代败家子们在他们的豪华包厢和场边席上与B级明星们谈笑风生的。
钱都在比赛里。是我们把钱投进去的。让那些勇敢、大胆的（笑死）“创造就业机会”的企业家们在劳动力市场上互相竞争吧，就像球员在球场上竞争一样。

Sean W.:

要不是有工会和经纪人，我都不知道这些可怜的家伙该怎么活下去。票价贵得离谱，而舆论却在说2.5亿还不够。贪婪。

solo R.:

@Sean W.
老板们拥有的资产要多得多，而且纳税要少得多。他们的房地产还享有补贴。也许我们应该先解决这个问题？
球员的利润分成并不是你想象中的问题，即使数字很大。他们把钱花在经济循环中，并且被征收额外的税，而不是更少。球员的钱最终流向了社区，而老板的钱却没有。

Erik S.:

@Sean W. 也许有一天，这些文章底下的评论者终于会明白，球员的薪水并不能决定去看比赛的成本，但今天显然还不是那一天。老板坚持要从他们的市场中榨取每一分钱，这才是票价如此之高的原因。没有别的原因。这是基本的经济学。如果你认为球迷的消费成本在任何程度上都是“球员贪婪”的结果，那你就是被老板的宣传给忽悠了。

Anonymous U.:

球员们通过谈判争取到了相对较高的联盟收入分成比例。我为此赞赏他们。但我不理解为什么要批评一个为了让队友拿更多钱而自己少拿钱的球星。工会同样也代表着那些队友。
我喜欢库里，尤其是金州勇士在他获得第一冠和最后一冠时的打法。他的薪水拿得当之无愧。但球队的许多限制都与支付给库里和巴特勒如此高昂的薪水有关。如果他和巴特勒真的想继续在最高水平上赢球，妥协接受每人4400万美元将对这一目标大有帮助。他们依然能赚到很多钱。我不嫉妒他们的薪水，但当他们创造了一个不平衡的阵容时，我也不会为他们无法赢球而感到痛苦。丹佛也是如此。
我知道在我的生活中，我必须明白，基于赚最多钱做出的决定很少能带来最大的幸福或满足感。我不明白为什么会有人去嫉妒少数想通了这一点的顶级球员。

Gaston G.:

这类文章底下的评论总是对我们国家最令人沮丧的反映之一。我们没有集体价值观，不够有文化*或*聪明，并且对我们大家都身处其中的劳动者事业漠不关心。这样说确实*非常*容易且自然：

这些家伙赚了这么多钱，所以我对他们毫无同情心（通常还伴随着大量的人身/性格攻击）

他们很自私，没有把赢球放在薪水之上，看看蒂姆·邓肯和汤姆·布雷迪，他们才是真正有品格的男人！

让我把我的收入与他们的进行对比，并在假设如果我处在他们的位置上我当然会拿少得多的钱之后，得出我显然在道德上更优越的结论。
我明白职业运动员赚取的巨额资金容易让我们产生嫉妒。事实就是这样，但这是人类的天性。令人失望的是，我们大多数人无法认识到球员才是劳动者，而这种支付体系是不公平的。这篇文章讲的就是这个体系如何不公平以及为什么不公平。是的，这些球员极其富有。但这并不意味着这个体系就是公平的。
想象一下，我们生活在一个全国只有30家盖房子公司的世界里，并且出现了巨大的住宅建设繁荣。房价涨到了疯狂的高度，这30家公司突然赚取了该行业有史以来最高的利润率。这30家公司的老板聚集在一起，实施了实际上针对资深木工的最高工资限制，定为每小时35美元。此外，每个建房团队都有最高工资总额限制，这使得一个团队里不可能同时拥有两名资深木工，而只能雇佣完全没有经验的木工，或者无法全职工作的老木工。
我们最终会得到建造质量低劣的房子，工地上更有可能出现糟糕的团队协作，而通过这一切变得极其富有的企业老板，却设法让购房者将整个烂摊子归咎于那些资深木工。
我对第二土豪线问题没有具体的答案，我也不认为答案是“老板们是亿万富翁，他们应该向球员支付无限的资金，直到他们的企业倒闭！”但解决方案很可能在于与球员进行利润分成。给他们一个公平、透明的份额，毕竟他们才是制作这整个蛋糕的主要面包师。

由生成式 AI 翻译，译文内容可能不准确或不完整，以原文为准。

查看原文：

Brian S.:

Does the NBAPA not understand how a salary cap works? You have to take less money as a superstar to have a better team.
Wemby is still getting $250 million, he won’t starve. Other players, also NBAPA members, will be able to stay with a good team and get paid. That’s a good thing. They don’t have to go to the Wizards.

Ted L.:

@Brian S. Agreed. And the only way to “take the pressure off” the stars is to get rid of the cap or seriously lighten the penalties for exceeding it. Higher salaries, of course, would not come out of the owners’ share. They would be paid for by siphoning every penny possible out of fans - still higher seat prices, more ads, more gambling, and who knows what else. The disease of more is in full effect.

Curtis R.:

Owners are going to charge fans whatever they can for seat prices, etc., to maximize revenues regardless of what they are paying players. To say player salaries are driving higher costs on the fans is backwards. Our willingness to she’ll out dollars and time drives up the cost of the players who garner our attention.

Erik S.:

@Brian S. Individual players voluntarily taking less money isn’t what the union is concerned about here. Big contracts being perceived as albatrosses by teams, so they stop giving them out at all, is the concern. This is far more about Brown than Wemby, despite the focus of the article

Justin B.:

@Ted L. I don’t think any owner has ever dropped prices when they have a less expensive roster to pass along those savings to the fans…

Ted L.:

@Curtis R. Eh. The players and owners are both playing a role here. Yes, the owners want more. But the players aren’t being dragged, kicking and screaming, to bigger contracts. Or weeping that the fans have to pay more and begging for restraint.

Brian S.:

@Erik S. Big contracts are albatrosses…because there is a salary cap, which isn’t new.

jerod A.:

@Ted L. So why aren’t you screaming about the billionaire owners “disease of more”? Why should it be entirely on the players who actually generate the revenue for the league to take less so their teams can be more competitive?

Lucas A.:

@Brian S. Strictly from a labor perspective, NBPA have a point in getting somewhat rankled by this move. If this were any other industry, not one where employee salaries start in the high 6-figures, the union would be tearing the person to shreds for accepting less money for his value to the company.
However, this is pro ball, and Wemby is about to become the most marketable player in basketball since Steph Curry. If anyone can take less money to help his team and not feel any monetary repercussions, it’s him. Plus, this feels more like the NBPA trying to leverage this situation to force a larger convo about the second apron, which serves as a hard salary cap and thus inherently anti-labor. Which is why they’re mentioning the second apron in the first place.

A C.:

@Brian S. Feels like the NBAPA is just making something out of nothing.
“Oh no! Wemby is only making a quarter of a billion instead of a third of a billion! That’s not right! We should be able to circumvent the salary cap because everyone should be entitled to make the most amount of money ***and*** still have a great team around them!”

Guilherme P.:

@Brian S. you entirely missed the whole point of the article. Why is the pressure on the *players* to forgo money when their employers are not doing so? Did the owners start to give away a cut of the profits?

Connie A.:

@Guilherme P. But that money will simply be re-distributed to other players. Wemby not taking the extra 50MM is so other players on his team can get that money.

Jim C.:

@jerod A. The split between owners and players has been roughly the same for years. And it’s a fair one. What the cap and the aprons do are to pit max players against lower paid players economically.

Jim C.:

@Guilherme P. The pressure isn’t on “the players.” “The players” take 50% overall regardless. It’s a question of how that money is distributed among players and Wemby decided in favor of a stronger team over his individual bag. Others choose differently, but it’s not employers vs. players on this issue.

Connie A.:

@Curtis R. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings about business sports fans seem to have.
Salaries absolutely can affect pricing. Not it all cases but it can. Some owners / business work for a “cost-plus” to try to obtain a specific profit *margin*. If input costs go up (player salaries being one of them), then prices to the customer (forms including ticket prices and concessions costs) may also go up to hold the expected return on investment.
It’s strange, when advocating for labor against team owners, everyone suddenly becomes a pure market capitalist.

Anonymous U.:

While changes might be useful, it’s always worth remembering that the athletes do choose the greed over winning more often than not. There’s a “get mine” mentality before winning, which is fine, but it’s a choice. The difference in 180 million dollars and 160 million dollars is inconsequential over the course of one’s lifetime, even more so the higher you get. Every NBA star will have generational wealth until the end of their bloodline if they choose, just on their first extension at any salary.
It’s easy to disconnect and realize that a single NBA minimum salary contract at any level of experience far exceeds the lifetime earnings of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It’s tough to root for multimillionaires vs billionaires. If an athlete wants to make sure they can buy a bigger yacht over winning, that’s not a fight I’m really into. If we were somehow putting it out there that a rookie is underpaid and is basically broke while making 10 million dollars over 4 years, I’d love to show them my paystubs with 20 years of experience.
I don’t care about owners whines in a gigantic business either. You don’t wanna spend to win, that’s still a fight I’m not into. You need to make 200m/year in profit with $20 beers and $10 hotdogs at a game? Maybe look at what sort of system you’re creating where fans don’t matter either on the court OR off the court.
Everyone needs to ratchet everything down a few levels. Owners make and want too much money, players demand too much of it. Fans just get to feast on the buffet of higher costs to watch games either by raising the price of whatever broadcast entity bids 3x what the last contract was (which raises the price of the service by whatever amount they can get away with) or ticket prices keep going up.
Good for Wemby, nobody in his orbit will ever have to worry about money ever again, but that was already true with his rookie contract so this doesn’t REALLY make me feel like he’s an altruistic sort of guy. It’s never about money, but it’s definitely about money. Just a slightly smaller yacht, maybe only 2 stories instead of 3.

Kris M.:

Agreed… The players and owners have advocates in the system, but fans don’t. The people collecting the money don’t care who buys tickets as long as someone does. It’s turning sports from a community event into a privileged one, and that’s a shame.

Johnny W.:

@Anonymous U. Do you apply this same logic for your own job? If your company is struggling financially, do you reduce your salary for the “good of the team”? Everyone is entitled to maximize their earnings, instead of telling people “buy a cheaper car/yacht, or maybe buy a smaller house”.

Jack S.:

@Johnny W. Johnny, I side with Anonymous and Kris. Some of the players put winning first. The players association (and the agents) puts total revenue first. The rest of us would like this monopoly to be regulated so that the system cannot permit a few to become fabulously wealthy at the expense of the general public. It’s the same argument that’s being played out nationally in this era of the New Robber Barons. Gee, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to regulate excesses when they crop up.

Ryan J.:

@Johnny W. This argument holds less water when the money in question actually affects quality of life. $250M vs. $300M will not change the ability to get food on the table.

Nathan M.:

But this argument isn’t only about the top players, this affects all those other guys at the bottom of the totem pole. The minimum contract players are the ones who are sacrificing the most. Sure, they still make more than me or you, but they deserve a voice. Remember, the ones writing the checks after profiting off the work of the players are the real villains of this story.

B S.:

@Ryan J. “argument holds less water when the money in question actually affects quality of life”
Hence, you are fighting for the billionaire owners over the millionaire players? Obviously the league’s popularity is driven by the owners, that’s the show people pay for, seeing Ballmer sitting courtside…

Tracy B.:

@Anonymous U. What Wemby did is the exact reason why Brady can’t get all his rings on one hand.

Don R.:

@Anonymous U. I agree with the point as far as not caring about the battle between owners and the elite of the NBA (Steph, Lebron, SGA, Wemby) echelon of players. And the union is missing the boat when they complain about the salaries of those guys.
If the union really was advocating for the vast majority of its members, it would be negotiating for higher minimums and lesser maximums for the best players.

Kris M.:

Nobody *has* to take less salary. But it doesn’t have to be every player’s only priority either. Lots of people take jobs that are not the highest paying ones they can get for various reasons. If a player actually prefers winning over that last 5%, it’s a free country. Since everyone says that, it’s nice to get to see who actually means it.
That’s not to say I prefer the owners get the money. As I said, I prefer it to be less expensive for the average fan.

Thomas C.:

Without meaning to be snarky, $250,000,000 is a burden? Is there anyone reading this who wouldn’t be ok with that for themselves? The level of tone-deafness is unfathomable.
And who among us wouldn’t “sacrifice” the extra five percent in order to have the satisfaction and joy of playing winning basketball, while making it easier for our teammates to live better lives?
We all make trade-offs, in order to balance the things that matter to us. In this case, that balance is win-literal win for NBA players. Complaining about it is a level of avarice that I can’t imagine, and yet is shockingly common in run-amuck USA.

Yossi R.:

@Thomas C. So it’s ok for the billionaires to buy another yacht, while the people that make the money for them take a pay cut because of a mandated salary suppression?

Thomas C.:

@Yossi R. Absolutely not. As I intimated, I view it as a societal problem, not at all limited to the NBPA.

Erik S.:

@Thomas C. If you find avarice to be shocking, boy do I have some bad news for you about the owners

Scott M.:

Yeah, this quote really got me: “It should not put a player in a position where he has to carry the burden in order to keep a team together.”
Say what? Exactly who should carry that burden? It’s a business. There’s a cap. Of course, players need to compromise if they want to stay in place, and enjoy a balanced, winning team. Stop being so damn greedy.
This isn’t the ABA of the 70s. The NBAPA is just ruffling feathers because they can. They’re going to kill the goose…

jerod A.:

@Scott M. Are you really saying “who exactly should carry that burden” and “stop being so greedy” it doesn’t even occur to you that maybe it’s the owners and not the workers who should carry it? Talking about greed and excluding the billionaires from the discussion is laughable.
The owners and league have built a system that is alienating fans more and more, but they don’t care because they’re focused on expanding in Europe. If anyone is killing the goose, it’s them.

Anonymous U.:

@Scott M. “There’s a cap” is working pretty hard for you. Remove the cap, pool all the revenues and let the owners take the hit for winning. No one, not one single rich person, ever loses money owning an NBA franchise because the asset appreciation has always grown faster than any operating losses. And the “business” is the NBA - the franchises aren’t competing with one another economically.
I don’t pay money - for tickets, concessions, League Pass and by letting interminable State Farm and boner medicine commercials pass in front of my eyeballs - to watch finance bros, real estate moguls, and second generation failsons yuck it up with B-list celebrities in their luxury boxes and courtside.
The money is in the game. We put it there. Let the brave, bold lol “job-creating” entrepreneurs compete with each other in the labor market the way the players do on the court.

Sean W.:

If it weren’t for unions and agents I don’t now how these poor guys could survive. Ticket prices are insane and the narrative is 250 million isn’t enough. Greed.

solo R.:

@Sean W.
Owners have way more and are taxed far less. And their real estate is subsidized. Maybe we should fix that first?
Players’ profit sharing isn’t the problem you think it is, even if the numbers are big. They spend into the economy and are taxed extra, not less. Players’ money ends up in the community, owners’ money does not.

Erik S.:

@Sean W. Maybe someday commenters on these articles will finally understand that player salaries do not determine the cost of going to a game, but today is clearly not that day. The owners’ insistence on extracting every possible penny from their market is why ticket prices are so high. Nothing else. That’s basic economics. If you think fan costs are in any way the result of “player greed”, you have been bamboozled by owner propaganda

Anonymous U.:

The players negotiated for a relatively high percentage of league earnings. I praise them for that. But I don’t get the critique of a star who takes less so his teammates can have more. The union represents those teammates too.
I love Steph and Golden State’s style of play for his first and last championships in particular. He’s earned his paycheck. But a lot of the team’s limits are tied into paying Steph and Butler as much as they do. If he and Butler really wanted to continue to win at the highest level, settling for $44 million each would go a long way to helping in that cause. They would still have plenty. I don’t begrudge the salaries, but I don’t feel the pain of not winning when they create an imbalanced roster. Denver too.
I know in my life, I had to learn that making decisions based on earning the most money rarely result in the most happiness or satisfaction. I don’t see why anyone would begrudge the few top tier players who have figured this out.

Gaston G.:

The comments on these kinds of articles are always among the most depressing reflections of our country. We have no collective values, are not very educated *or* smart, and are apathetic to the workers’ cause that we all live in. It is *very* easy and natural to say:
-These guys make a ton of money, so I have no sympathy for them (often with lots of personal/character attacks)
-They are selfish for not prioritizing winning over salary, look at Tim Duncan and Tom Brady, they are real men of character!
-Let me compare my earnings with theirs, and conclude that I am clearly morally superior, after hypothesizing that I of course would take far less money if I were in their shoes
I get that the huge sums of money professional athletes earn make us prone to jealousy. That’s straight up what it is, but that’s human nature. What’s so disappointing is that most of us are unable to recognize that the players are the workers, and the system of payment is unfair. This article is about how and why that system is unfair. Yes, these players are incredibly rich. But that does not mean that the system is fair.
Imagine we live in a world where there are 30 companies in the country that build houses, and there’s a huge residential construction boom. Houses are going for crazy prices, and these 30 companies are suddenly making the highest profit margins ever seen in the industry. The owners of these 30 companies get together and implement what is effectively a maximum wage for experienced carpenters set at $35/hr. Furthermore, there is a maximum salary for each house building crew, which makes it impossible to have even two experienced carpenters and anything other than completely inexperienced carpenters, or very old ones who can’t work full-time.
We’d wind up with poorly built houses, more likely bad team chemistry on the job site, and the business owners getting wildly rich from the whole thing somehow get the home buyer to blame the experienced carpenters for the whole mess.
I don’t have a specific answer to the second apron problem, and I don’t think it’s, “To owners are billionaires, they should pay an infinite amount to the players until their businesses fail!” But likely the solution lays in profit sharing with the players. Give them a fair, transparent cut of the whole pie that they have been the primary bakers of.

via The Athletic