The NBA really needs to grow a spine on this one. They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. It will just be one more reminder for the populace that their current government restricts them from luxuries the rest of the world gets to experience. And if that doesn't bother them, good riddance I guess, it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league that's going to overtake the NBA, ever.
My I'm just feeling cynical, but this just sounds to me like an easy way to have it both ways:
1. Placate the US by putting out a public statement saying "We support freedom of speech for our people."
2. Placate China by using a backchannel to ensure that no one in the NBA actually uses this nominal freedom to say something that hurts China's feelings.
Actually standing up would require supporting a statement that had been said instead of offerring vague support for future statements which may or may not ever occur.
> However, a statement posted in Chinese by the NBA on Weibo, China’s Twitter-like microblogging site, appeared different, according to translators.
> “We feel greatly disappointed at Houston Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey’s inappropriate speech, which is regrettable," the statement read. "Without a doubt, he has deeply offended many Chinese basketball fans. Morey has clarified that his stance on this issue does not represent either Houston Rockets or the NBA. From NBA’s perspective, people can be interested in different subjects and freely share their opinions. We take respecting Chinese history and culture as a serious matter. We also hope that sports and the NBA, as a unified source of positive energy, can continue to build bridges between countries and bring people together. "
Regardless of whether the NBA has control over what is said on that account, it's pretty shitty to have it one way in one country and another way elsewhere while hiding behind a language barrier. If this kind of double-speak continues, they're playing us all for fools.
The evidence is that they didn't support the original tweet that caused all the ruckus, and there hasn't been a flood of tweets or other expressions of support for HK by other NBA people since the NBA made the statement.
This is nothing more than the illusion of a stance so long as the statement on Weibo stands. Publicly calling Morey's statement "inappropriate" and "disappoint[ing]" and expressing regret for it cannot be reconciled with supporting free speech.
Here is the Weibo statement for those who haven't seen it,
> However, a statement posted in Chinese by the NBA on Weibo, China’s Twitter-like microblogging site, appeared different, according to translators.
> “We feel greatly disappointed at Houston Rockets’ GM Daryl Morey’s inappropriate speech, which is regrettable," the statement read. "Without a doubt, he has deeply offended many Chinese basketball fans. Morey has clarified that his stance on this issue does not represent either Houston Rockets or the NBA. From NBA’s perspective, people can be interested in different subjects and freely share their opinions. We take respecting Chinese history and culture as a serious matter. We also hope that sports and the NBA, as a unified source of positive energy, can continue to build bridges between countries and bring people together. "
- The NBA has spent years and many millions of dollars investing in China, helping to build courts, giving broadcasting rights away for free and bringing its stars over for preseason games.
One second you are in the market.
Poof, you are not anymore.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
--
Investing in China as a western company to earn money is the worst business decision you can have.
Knowledge transfer for manufacturing is the second.
NBA annual TV revenue: $4B China (CCTV & Tencent) versus $24B USA (ESPN & TNT).
Those numbers are outdated and incomplete, but basically describe the relative market size.
Maybe you are thinking of rate of growth.
EDIT: As tanilama pointed out my numbers are wrong. The USA (ESPN & TNT) TV deal is about ~$2.6B per year. The Tencent streaming deal is ~$1.5B over 5 years. I don't know about CCTV.
pretty sure that basically describes the relative market valuation - given income differences/relative cache of the two different leagues, market size vs valuation would be vastly different.
>the amount of money the NBA earns in China dwarfs its U.S. revenue.
Source?
>It already has basketball leagues.
I guess it's a good thing I didn't say they don't. Partial quoting to try to make a point where there isn't one isn't very cool.
>And considering that China has exported star players to the NBA, it's certainly a possibility.
It's exported exactly one star: yao Ming, and one slightly above average player in Jeremy Lin. And those two were so far apart they never played in the NBA at the same time. If you think one star every 30 years is going to be good enough to replace an NBA that produces multiple stars every other year.... I guess pass whatever you're smoking my way.
China doesn't need the NBA nearly as much as the NBA wants China's money. Just as I would mildly like to be as good of bicyclist as my neighbor who has devoted time to that rather than a career, I see no reason why China couldn't easily frame the NBA in some sort of a similar manner while pouring a bit of cash into developing a "good enough" domestic league that has the added bonus of being Chinese. Even if the Chinese populace currently held high admiration for NBA players, I suspect this opinion if fairly malleable - particularly when you can point out a very clear and plausible path to de facto world economic and military supremacy as a consolation prize.
Because we already have a preexisting standard we conform to. Saying Jeremy Lin is a Chinese export is like saying the NBA mostly consists of African exports - we generally consider the black players with some African heritage as just Americans. Jeremy Lin is an American with Chinese heritage - This also helps to differentiate from players who actually have emigrated from other countries like Hakeem Olajuwon.
The term "African American" is complicated. But I think when someone self-identifies as a [country]-American, it's generally fair to call them an export of that country. You would want to be clear in certain circumstances that they weren't born there, but it's not a terrible way to phrase things.
Note that this is different from just having heritage in a country. There's immigration only a couple generations back in my family, but it's already mixed to the point that I wouldn't call myself any specific country-American.
Because most people don't view/phrase it like that and it sounds absurd either way. At best your phrasing is absurd and at worst (which you deny is the case), racist.
Right, this is not a freedom of speech issue because that has been long gone with cancel culture. This is a case of whether cancel culture applies internationally, which is difficult for an American corporation operating internationally. With Trump's decoupling and isolationism, more of these issues will come up under the guise of ideology or values, but which are not actually about these.
> They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose.
I don’t understand this. They could lost all their market in China which is not a small number and in return, long-term financially, nothing. It is not like Chinese people can’t live without it. There are more than enough entertainments for Chinese people to enjoy.
At the rate they're making money (NBA), why does ADDITIONAL PROFIT matter ? We aren't 'the ferangi'; people are more important than profits, but American corporations seem to have ignored or forgotten that. Screw NBA market share, or financial well-being. Democracy and human rights are vastly more important!
NOTE: I think this has been handled incredibly poorly by the NBA and that Morey should have doubled down on his tweet, not caved.
That said, the reason additional profits matter is that 51% of the revenue (not profits) go to the players, and the salary cap is tied directly to total revenue. This was collectively bargained and cannot be changed without a renegotiation. A lot of decisions have been made making assumptions about revenue that include revenue from China. On the player side, the total amount of money available to them is directly impacted by how much money is generated in China.
All that said, the NBA and the players should absolutely speak out and dare the CCP to delete the NBA. It's the most popular sport in the country and they've spent years cultivating the relationship. People will notice if it disappears.
Sorry, but "why does the NBA (a large corporation employing many people) need to make more money?" comes off as a far more reasonable question to me than "why do professional American basketball players need to make more money?"
Sorry, wasn't clear and was really making two points that are tangentially related:
1 - highlighting that total revenue generated directly impacts the amount of money available to players (as in there is a legal document outlining this)
2 - Ownership groups and the league as a whole have made many decisions based on an assumption of 49% of future revenues generated, so reductions in that future revenue stream are a lot riskier than "we just won't make as much profit." It's possible that for some teams, the reduction in revenue could actually force them to operate substantially in the red.
Once again, just want to be clear that I'm just pointing out the actual financial situation and that I still think the NBA should and could call China's bluff. It would likely sting in the short term, but China has invested so much in building up the NBA domestically that it will be really difficult to just delete it without any kind of backlash.
Long-term, I imagine the NBA is going to put more resources into the Indian market to reduce their reliance on a single overseas market.
Sorry about that, I was unaware of that connotation. rrix2 is correct in the linked wiki - I meant Ferengi, the Star Trek aliens obsessed with profit above all else, and the subsequent greed.
Basketball is popular in China. The NBA is the premier league. It doesn't need China. If you want to see the best or play with the best, it will be the NBA. If the CCP (China Communist Party) wants to spoil the entertainment of the citizenry, that's their problem. The NBA can go right back into China whenever the winds change.
On the other hand, if the NBA doesn't stand up to China, a large part of their core audience will find something else to do.
This isn't specifically about a basketball league. This is a choice between believing in personal freedom of expression, versus allowing a repressive foreign government to censor people who are not their citizens, all in the name of profit.
Who upped the ante? One guy who tweeted something, or a government who blocked a whole industry? NBA isn't forcing anything. They would continue showing their programming in China if it were not blocked.
Well technically you don't have to choose a side you can choose to do nothing which is its own side in a way and has meaning and consequence to the general population. People know that rich and famous people, or people in power really have the most sway in matters. So we mere laypeople can decide that you either choose a side or you have chosen to side against us. If you were looking at a person who had the ability to help, but choose to do nothing can you not see how people can be upset with them? Again sure you can choose to do nothing but I won't like you, I might stop supporting you, or I may even work against you.
People need to stop talking about China like it's a single unit and the government can control every single thing its people do. They threatened certain countries and yet tourist and student arrivals from China only increased. If they block NBA Chinese fans will still find a way to consume it.
They'll find a way to consume it. But the NBA will probably make much more money through legitimate products in China than if Chinese fans are watching pirated streams over VPN and buying counterfeit, unlicensed jerseys.
The jerseys are probably made in China anyway. Unlicensed = the NBA doesn't make money from license fees. Maybe wearing an NBA shirt in China would equate to wearing one with Winnie the Pooh?
> it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league that's going to overtake the NBA, ever.
Why not? Is it inconceivable that in the future the CBA will be able to compete with the NBA for top talent? I guarantee that down the road a future Zion Williamson will choose to play in China over New Orleans. This won't be in the near future mind you, but as the Chinese economy grows, and as basketball gets more popular, I don't see why this couldn't be the future.
Not likely, players (not superstars) can already make more money in Euroleague yet everyone given a choice wants to play at the highest level, which is NBA. Superstars even more so, Kawhi Leonard won a title in Toronto but chose to go back home in LA, for less guaranteed money.
You may overestimate how valuable those billion viewers are, most of them don't have the money to buy anything.
Also, there are a great many cultural and economic reasons that foreign players generally avoid playing in China's existing professional sports league. Political oppression is just one of those reasons.
"Future Zion Williamson"'s have chosen to play in China over the NCAA already. The ones who have all spoke about the culture shock and language barriers and how it impeded their development. The Australian leagues seem far more likely to carve out an early career role for American high school stars.
What do you mean? Adam Silver wrote a statement supporting Morey's right to free speech, and then doubled down on it after receiving flak for his free speech support.
I think the point was the NBA needs to take a stance on HK itself, in support of democracy.
"We support free speech" is a cop-out, because China is happy for you to support free speech, as long as you don't say anything they don't like. It would be a stronger stance to say, "Actually, we think Morey was right", especially if it's going to cost them money to do so.
> Adam Silver has released statement on league’s relationship status with China, reading in part: “The NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues. We simply could not operate that way.”
I don't think the NBA needs to take a stance on HK. It literally has nothing to do with them. I think it would be pretty cool if they did come out publicly in support of the protesters, but I don't think they have any kind of moral or business imperative to do so.
It seems plausible that Hong Kong is actually a substantial third-rail issue for the mainland population. And that it doesn't just reflect Chinese government propaganda. If that's the case, profit-driven pandering to their feelings is arguably no different than profit-driven pandering to the feelings of other audiences.
I mean, after all, Hong Kong was occupied by the British for over 100 years. And it played a huge role in the opium trade. So I can imagine how it could be a substantial third-rail issue.
Isn't it easy for you to say when you risk losing nothing on this matter? If your business were about to lose a big and growing market wouldn't you do all you could to keep that market happy whether you agree with them or not? If not my guess is your business wouldn't last very long.
They have everything to lose and it's quite sane for them to back down from this fight. The NBA isn't our government, just because our politicians are spineless and fawning doesn't mean companies need to take up the fight.
That all said it'd be awesome if they chose to push back even though it's entirely destructive to themselves.
Why is it any less the responsibility of American businessmen than American politicians? We're a nation of free people, and we all share in both the benefits and responsibilities of freedom. You don't get to pretend to be an American and then put your head in the sand and say, "Oh I'm just a businessman." If that's your first loyalty then fine, but at least be straight about it and don't try to have it both ways with this "we love free expression but the dollars, sorry" crap.
It absolutely is the responsibility of American businessmen, but the question wasn't about businessmen it was about the NBA - the NBA is a corporation with no fealty, loyalty or citizenship within any country in the world. I think in America there has been a hard push to prevent government control into various companies - just because this scenario is about decrying a foreign entity instead of the US flexing power domestically (i.e. via warrantless wiretapping) doesn't change the fact that, at a basic level, it's the same exact problem.
Lastly, there are no American corporations, nothing should be given to them because they're assumed to be American and nothing should be expected of them - anything required of them should be encoded into law so that one corporation can't exploit the morally correct decision of another corporation as a weakness.
They, like many companies, would love to have their cake and eat it too - they want the positive PR from looking like "A Real American Company" with patriotism and all that - while actually having no obligation toward (and making no effort to support) any given country.
