- Does anyone remember the NBA strike from last summer, 2011? One of the main bullet points of the labor dispute was the so-called building of Super Teams in big markets. Owners of small market teams complained about players collaborating to form teams of superstars in cities like Miami, LA, and Boston; leaving smaller market teams like Charlotte, Toronto, and Utah places to avoid playing for if you want shoe deals and other lucrative endorsements.
The idea players have to form "Super Teams" to win championships could change the balance of power in the league, making it virtually impossible for teams in smaller markets to compete without talent. Sure these small market teams will most likely land the top picks in the draft but it won't be enough to sell out a stadium or get massive television contracts. Let's face it, when certain teams with little or no talent play in bigger markets, there is no interest in attending games and everyone loses money. This was said to be the reason league president, David Stern, blocked a deal that had Chris Paul leaving New Orleans (small market team) to play in Los Angeles (big market team). The twist to that deal? The league owned the rights to New Orleans, so what you had was the individual that approved or disapproved deals for the league making a deal within the league. Can you say conflict of interest?
Nonetheless, Steve Nash joining the LA Lakers, Dwight Howard possibly signing with the Brooklyn Nets, along with other free agent moves happening this 2012 offseason have some asking; Was the NBA strike meaningful? Has the nightmare of the small market teams come true? If the main focus of the labor dispute was to prevent Super Teams from forming, did it work? Only time will tell but for now, a big flop!!!