Looks like Kareem is back in 2k

[cthurt]

All this Barkley video game talk always reminds me that he had his own basketball video game back in the day called Barkley's Shut up and Jam, man video games were so simple back then so much politics these days for basically a childhood hobby.

[Mauer4MVP]

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

Well, in Barkley's case, he may have a point. I don't really know enough to be sure one way or another. He appeared to have concerns regarding the retirement benefits of players whose careers had ended. And I think that could be an important platform, particularly for a lot of players whom he played alongside prior to the salary explosion. For instance, Clemon Johnson played with Barkley for two years in the mid-80's. Johnson played 10 solid years in the league, maxing out at $500,000 in his final season. Chances are, he's not still living off that money he made in 1988. Barkley seems to be looking out for guys like him, in terms of their retirement compensation from the league (or lack thereof). And even for those players of the modern era who are particularly well off, I don't necessarily means they have a civic duty to give up their likeness for a number they may not find personally acceptable, particularly if they have some sort of disagreement or distaste with the product being pitched and/or the people doing the pitching. There's a lot of factors at play here. Both Webber and Abdul-Jabbar agreed to terms with 2K for NBA 2K12, so the 2002 Kings, 1971 Bucks, and 1987 Lakers all made sense for inclusion. In 2K13, 2K just happened to be nice enough to keep those teams on board even though they lost the rights to Webber and Abdul-Jabbar. That way, folks were just two create-a-players away (with all their signatures in tact) from having those squads loaded back up and ready to go. Created Webbers looked pretty awesome, ditto '71 Abdul-Jabbars. The only real hang up came in '87, because a goggle-less Abdul-Jabbar stuck out like a sore thumb, but it was still way better than nothing.

I guess I personally don't see why the NBA has to be responsible for giving Clem Johnson a full salary to live off of. I think they should get health care coverage and some type of compensation, but that's kind of life. I'd be ecstatic if I got to play in the NBA for $500,000 and then had to get another job after that.

But absolutely, he has the right to not be in it. I'm just saying if it's his way at getting at the NBA then he shouldn't be on TNT either.

[redsox4evur]

Also this should be brought up. Guys aren't getting much $ for their likeness anyways. I don't know if it's a one time payment. But when doing research on Barkley and his situation. It turned out he only got $50K for having his likeness on the dream team. So if it's a one time payment that isn't a lot of money when this game is making a **** ton more, especially if it's over a number of years.

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mauer4MVP

I guess I personally don't see why the NBA has to be responsible for giving Clem Johnson a full salary to live off of. I think they should get health care coverage and some type of compensation, but that's kind of life. I'd be ecstatic if I got to play in the NBA for $500,000 and then had to get another job after that. But absolutely, he has the right to not be in it. I'm just saying if it's his way at getting at the NBA then he shouldn't be on TNT either.

Yeah, I was going to clarify my statements on Johnson but kept it brief because the post was already kind of long, ha. If I had to guess, Barkley likely doesn't believe guys like Clem Johnson should be getting a full salary either. But retirement benefits are typically sticky situations in any profession, often regarding the details you mentioned, such a health care coverage and whatnot.

It's common for former employees to feel their fellow companions are under-compensated after retirement, and a lot of times, they're absolutely right. I don't know if Barkley's right in this case, but it wouldn't be surprising if there's something to it. I kind of appreciate that he appears to be looking out for his former co-workers.

Also, I'm not sure if his absence is flat out his way of sticking it to the NBA. I believe he was saying in 2012 that he was demanding a higher price than 2K was offering because he wanted all that cash donated to the NBA retirement fund ($50,000 versus $10,000 maybe... honestly struggling to recall). I guess maybe he felt getting lowballed wasn't going to cut it... until Jay-Z convinced him otherwise (which I never would have believed if Barkley didn't say so himself).

[Mauer4MVP]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

Also this should be brought up. Guys aren't getting much $ for their likeness anyways. I don't know if it's a one time payment. But when doing research on Barkley and his situation. It turned out he only got $50K for having his likeness on the dream team. So if it's a one time payment that isn't a lot of money when this game is making a **** ton more, especially if it's over a number of years.

Yeah but you never get paid your exact worth. Otherwise, no one else would be making money. And hell, I'd rather have 50k then not. It might not be much to him, but still.

[Jet Sufferer]

I find Barkley's position ridiculous.

Basketball isn't football, you're not getting lifelong serious issues like football players.

In case he hasn't noticed being a professional athlete is not a lifetime job. It's a short term proposition, the players are independent contractors and it's incumbent on the players to know that, save their money, and plan for their futures and careers after basketball.

The league owes no one a living, in almost any era the player makes many times more than the average worker. If he wants to help he can organize a fund like Mike Ditka has done to help retired players. Basketball players are so wildly compensated now that it could be funded in 10 minutes with a little organization.

Just what are these ex players "owed". If you played for a long time and you're broke, your fault, if you played for a short time why does the NBA have to take care of you.

Anyone else looking for compensation for what you contributed to your old jobs/companies that you worked for for 2-10 years and no longer work for today. Go tell your old employer you need compensation for what you helped "build". Give me a break.

[Sundown]

Quote: Originally Posted by redsox4evur

I can explain this pretty easily. NBA 2K, and any other NBA basketball all make the NBA money in many different ways. Whether it be through licenses, legends likenesses, etc. So Chuck, Reggie, C. Webb, etc. if they hate the way the league is treating it's retired players than by not allowing their likeness in a game they could cost the league money because there will be people who won't buy the game about it. And Dave, Barkley and Miller don't work for the league...they work for Turner Broadcasting System of Time Warner. C. Webb, we don't know the reason why he won't be in the game it could just be the $$$.

Yet TNT benefits the NBA enormously financially by having them commentate, and TNT pays the NBA for its licensing in amounts that eclipse what 2K ever will.

It's not that these players don't want the NBA to make money. It's likely that these players want the ratio of retired players' compensation vs the league's to be much, much higher, or for the league to have more responsibility for players they're using the likeness of. This is being fought on the battleground of video game licensing, with fans taking the hit, when they're are actually in a not-so-indirect partnership with the NBA that involves much larger monetary amounts flowing both ways, which is an arrangement they're perfectly happy with and would probably want other players to be able to benefit from.

They may be taking a stand on principle but in the end I don't think it moves the needle much. It just means we can't have nice things unless Jay-Z asks nicely.

[redsox4evur]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sundown

Yet TNT benefits the NBA enormously financially by having them commentate, and TNT pays the NBA for its licensing in amounts that eclipse what 2K ever will. It's not that these players don't want the NBA to make money. It's likely that these players want the ratio of retired players' compensation vs the league's to be much, much higher, or for the league to have more responsibility for players they're using the likeness of. This is being fought on the battleground of video game licensing, with fans taking the hit, when they're are actually in a not-so-indirect partnership with the NBA that involves much larger monetary amounts flowing both ways, which is an arrangement they're perfectly happy with and would probably want other players to be able to benefit from. They may be taking a stand on principle but in the end I don't think it moves the needle much. It just means we can't have nice things unless Jay-Z asks nicely.

I agree with you. That the TNT deal benefits the NBA probably 10X more than 2K does. I wasn't saying that to any extant. I just pointing out that Reggie and Chuck don't work directly for the league. And you are probably right about the reasons for most guys. But I can't see a guy like Webber being concerned about the retirement benefits of the league.