SIGN UP PAGE
-Sign up for our annual email updates-
Back To The Home-Page
Fair Play Violations?
Salary Cap?
Manchester City and LA Clippers Signal
Far Larger Financial Disagreements
October 7th, 2026
This month the National Basketball Association or, "NBA," concluded a 12+ month investigation into the Los Angeles Clippers organization for, "circum-navigating," the league's salary cap. But what is a salary cap? And what rules were broken? Whereby, to put this concept into the most basic of terms... the NBA has a roughly 165 million dollar salary cap per season, which each team is allowed to allocate towards signing premier basketball talent with the hopes of winning the league championship every year. Furthermore, every season the salary cap is changed based upon league revenues for the previous season and there is even an, "apron threshold," where some teams are allowed to go above the 165 million dollars in yearly payroll under certain conditions and sometimes at a financial cost which is then re-invested into the league. However, in recent years the Los Angeles Clippers organization, which is owned by Microsoft baron Steve Balmer, has been accused of, "circum-navigating," these financial restrictions by paying their team's star player, Kawaii Leonard, through phony endorsement deals and, "no show," business arrangements. Allegations further state that the Los Angeles Clippers paid their star player roughly 10-20 million dollars in extra salary through endorsement deals where the player did little to nothing in return for those funds. Regardless, due to the financial constraints of, "the NBA's salary cap," which again allows teams to pay their 13 man roster's approximately 165 million dollars per season, other teams in the league have alleged that this style of business was undermining the goal of, "competitive parity among the league's teams," who strictly adhere to the financial limitations imposed by the league.
The Benefits Of A Capped League
Now the goal of a, "salary cap," has always been to create a STRONGER professional sports league. Where in theory... capping each team's payroll every season allows smaller market teams and less successful organizations within the league's 32 team framework to compete with larger franchises in a sort of, "revenue sharing," that benefits the league as a whole. And for the most part this financial strategy has worked throughout the history of the NBA. In fact, smaller market teams are often disbursed 40-50 million dollars per season by the more successful teams in the league creating turnover at the top of the basketball standings and allowing for smaller market teams to compete at the highest levels versus larger and more industrious or more benefically located franchises. In fact, this strategy has worked so well that other professional sports league's have now taken it upon themselves to engraciate this same system into their leagues with the hopes of allowing fans of every region the ability to experience success both financially and on the field, in one decade or the next. However, 1 league does not have a salary cap. Major League Baseball, one of the worlds oldest sports leagues, has NOT adopted this concept as they have maintained a strict, "free for all," economic model which still allows larger market teams to pay their players whatever premiums that their talents require with a strictly, "supply and demand," business model. Whereby, because of Major League Baseball or MLB's strict adherence to supply and demand economics wages are often far larger, leading to players such as Shohei Ohtani of the Los Angeles Dodgers now being paid in excess of 70 million dollars per season as compared to NBA players which are currently, "capped," at about 65 million dollars per season.
Will Major League Baseball Skip The 2027 Season Arguing?
And this has been a very hotly contested topic for many decades now, "does a salary cap benefit the sport?" "Does a salary cap impose improper controls upon players by ownership?" "Does the salary cap benefit the owner's more than the players?" "And should small market teams be given the same resources as big market franchises in any given professional sports setting or location?"
Should Los Angeles have the same resources as Kansas City in professional baseball? And who benefits the most from imposing financial regulations upon the acquisition of talent for each city? And for years these questions have swirled in a variety of contexts with many NBA players hinting that the, "salary cap," is nothing short of racism and that the current system is designed entirely to benefit ownership. Meanwhile, others in politics have argued that the minor league system's for almost every professional sport's league is primarily rooted in public education and tax funded High School and College leagues which make capping the professional league's spending, "fair," due to the foundations of the league's success. Others argue that since 70% of these league's stadiums are built and owned by the city's for which they play... that those tax funded stadiums also justify essentially, "capping the revenue," of players, who in some instances could command far greater sums of money without the limitations imposed by a, "league mandated salary cap." Furthermore, others still point to the ability for smaller franchises, often in smaller city's, ability to compete with larger franchises as a key aspect of professional sports which often drives the leagues revenue entirely based upon the ability for EVERY TEAM to compete in any given league. And this issue has seen a number of challenges throughout the years, however, perhaps no greater challenge will arise than this season's Major League Baseball collective bargaining agreement. Whereby, today MLB owner's are now trying to impose a salary cap upon the last professional sports league in the world without one... threatening to even cancel next year's baseball season over the issue.
So that's the most simplistic terms that I can use to describe the situation regarding professional sports league's and, "salary caps," or salary restrictions... within the context of what most politicans still demand to be called, "a free market economy." Nevertheless, where this issue becomes equally frustrating is in terms of foreign and domestic league's competing for fans and media markets abroad. So this season, simultaneously as the Los Angeles Clippers were being punished for not abiding by these financial restrictions... another franchise overseas, in an entirely different sport and in an entirely different league, was also punished for committing similar violations of their league's, "salary cap." Whereby, Manchester City, one of the most prominent clubs in European professional futball was also found guilty of 114/115 financial fair play violations, concerning these same issues of, "circum-navigating," their league's salary cap.
Who's At Fault?
And this circumstance ultimately begs the question, "who's ethically wrong here, players for wanting more wages? Or owners for restricting players earning potential? And what penalty's should exist for breaking these rules? Furthermore, in what most politicians still claim to be, "a free market economy," who's to decide the income of some of the world's most well known and respected professional athletes? And how do you penalize someone for accepting endorsement deals with no credible give and take, if companys are willing to pay athlete's more money to play in their city? And the effects of this practice are well known, championship teams reverberate through regions and greatly affect their local population in terms of; local morale, motivation, success, leadership and fitness. However, the counter argument is that tax payer funded High School and College systems greatly feed into these professional sports league's development making both the players and their teams somewhat indebted to their region's and governments from the start, not to mention the tax payer funded stadiums that for an overwhelming percentage of franchises are owned and operated by their local governments. So who's in the wrong? Owner's for limiting player's earning potential? Or player's for wanting more?
In Conclusion
In conclusion,, I think that the root of this issue lies primarily in the lack of public awareness concerning these finances. Whereby, take the example of Kevin Durant, who is a prolific superstar in his own right... and let's examine the interplay between free market politics and government institutions concerning this issue. Durant, a 10 time All-Star and one of the greatest offensive talents in basketball history has made roughly 600 million dollars over the course of his 19 year NBA career through strictly, "playing basketball in the NBA."
"KD," as he's known to NBA fans, has been; bruised, beaten, broken bones, torn ligaments, hurt his wrist, twisted his ankle, run a million line sprints and he's scored the basketball with the prowess of a young Lion cub for almost 20 years of NBA basketball and he's been paid handsomely for it. However, on top of KD's 600 million dollars in NBA earnings... he has also recieved between 800 million dollars to 1 billion dollars for his athletic sneaker line promoted by the conglomerate shoe maker, "Nike," the exact figure is not disclosed to the public but it can be reasonably inferred by his competitors that he has recieved almost 1 billion dollars in endorsement deals from Nike alone. Then, on top of Durant's 1.5 billion dollar Nike + NBA earnings, KD has also invested into a handful of startup companys likely netting the superstar anywhere between 2 to 10 billion dollars more, from his financial assets triple, quadrupling in various financial markets over the course of his illustrious career. So, to put this topic into perspective, Kevin Durant, who is one of the most prolific basketball talents of this generation... has likely earned over 15 billion dollars in his NBA career... which essentially started through his youth league development in High School sport's leagues, primarily funded by tax payers and built on the backs of coaches who developed that talent with government paychecks, played in stadiums primarily funded by you guessed it, tax paying Americans. Furthermore, Kevin Durant's likely 15 billion dollars in earnings almost entirely stem from the name recognition and viewership of fans who have paid to watch him play in government funded and government policed crowds who have congregated in tax payer funded stadiums...
So should every league have a, "salary cap?" Who's wrong in this scenario... the owner's for capping the player's income or players for wanting more? And what penalty's should exist for player's and franchises simply accepting money for their services? And personally, I think that the lack of transparency is the problem. How much money should these guy's make when their entire careers hinge upon youth leagues and stadiums which are primarily funded by tax payers? And if you knew that Kevin Durant made 15-20-30 billion dollars playing basketball, would you support him as a fan? What is too much? And when do fans start to take offense to such massive financial disparity, themselves?
-William Larsen, Founder CiviliansNews.com