IBJNews

Case from 1970 revisited in dispute over NBA TV revenue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The NBA asked a Manhattan judge on Thursday to side with the league in a legal battle with origins in the bygone era of short shorts, low-top sneakers and big Afros.

The dispute stems from a sweetheart deal that's enjoyed by the former owners of a defunct American Basketball Association team — and despised by current owners of four NBA franchises, including the Indiana Pacers.

It all began in 1970, when future legends like Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek and Bill Bradley filed an antitrust lawsuit challenging the NBA's then-proposed merger with the ABA.

As part of a settlement reached in 1976, the St. Louis Spirits of the ABA agreed to fold. In exchange, the NBA was required starting in 1980 to pay Spirits owners Ozzie and Dan Silna a portion of the television revenue earned by the four ABA teams that survived the merger: the Indiana Pacers, now Brooklyn Nets, Denver Nuggets and San Antonio Spurs.

Because the four teams must share with the Silnas as long as the NBA exists, the brothers have quietly made a killing off league's explosion in popularity in recent decades — by some estimates, around $240 million so far.

According to story published last November by IBJ, the deal has cost the Pacers $4 million to $5 million annually in recent years.

"Every year, when it came down to take a look at the budgeting process we would all just shake our heads," a former Nuggets executive once told the Los Angeles Times.

But the brothers have now called a technical foul: Last year, they asked the court to reopen the old antitrust case, claiming that the league has unfairly cut them out of revenue from international broadcasts and cable packages.

The judge who had originally presided over the case in federal court in Manhattan died last year. But a current judge, Loretta Preska, agreed to take a look.

NBA lawyer Jeff Mishkin argued on Thursday that the revenue-sharing provision applied only to national broadcasts by traditional TV networks.

Mishkin said the agreement makes clear that, "You get network television revenues — and that's all you get." The NBA, he added, "has never not met its obligation."

The brothers' attorney, Michael Carroll, countered that wording in the settlement referring to revenue from "all broadcasts" should be interpreted to include more modern TV offerings like NBA League Pass, which allows viewers to see out-of-market games.

Preska told the parties she would review their court filings before making any ruling. In the meantime, she suggested they should try to find a way to share the wealth without one.

"I think you people ought to sit down and talk about this," she said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good Point Brian
    Nice counter point response, I like it.
  • Fair enough
    Fair enough, Mike. But consider that, per this report, the Silnas have earned an estimated $240 million from this deal. Perhaps they could've netted more had the Spirits stayed in operation, but that doesn't change the fact that they've got a huge some of money without any risk to capital. That screams sweetheart to me. Very few fans have known of this deal, hence "silent." And it's been reported previously that the Simons are very upset with this deal. I'm not saying that the Silnas don't deserve it. I'm simply saying that the article can't be biased if it's true.
  • Fair?
    Are you sure it is fair? How much would the St. Louis Spirits be worth today, and what would their collective earnings be over the last 32 years if they were not forced to fold?
    • Objective
      Is the bias unfair if it's true??
    • Way to be objective
      Way to be objective in your reporting... Using phrases like 'sweetheart deal', 'despised by owners', and 'quietly making a killing' shows a lack of being impartial, and a clear bias towards one side of the story.

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ
      1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

      2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

      3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

      4. Exciting times in Carmel.

      5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

      ADVERTISEMENT