“When you think about it,” John Thompson used to say, “the question’s insulting.
Because it assumes that I was the first one to have the intelligence or the
ability to do the job.” Thus Thompson frequently answered the question ‘what
does it feel like to be the first African-American Coach to win a Division I
national championship in basketball?’
Pioneers know, more than anyone else, the connective tissue of their
achievements — the people that mentored them and looked out for them that no
one else knows or remembers, the sheer blind luck that left them in position to
capitalize on their abilities — and, most importantly, the people that could
have been first, maybe should have been, but weren’t for one reason or another.
So Michele Roberts knows she should probably feel some kind of way about being
the first woman, and the first African-American woman at that, to be the head of
a men’s major pro sports union in the United States.
But there’s been way too much to do since she got the job as Executive Director
of the National Basketball Players Association in 2014, replacing Billy Hunter
— who’d spent the last few months on the job in an imbroglio involving the
NBPA’s former president, Derek Fisher; the two accused each other in public and
in court of various misdeeds before and after the 2011 lockout. Roberts, a
former trial lawyer with both public and private practice experience who was
considered one of the best in her field, had to get up to speed quickly to
determine the various and sometimes contradictory desires of a 450-member union
comprised of superstars and D-League callups; one-and-done college sensations
and vets looking for one last payday. And she then had to engage the NBA in
negotiations on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before either the players
or the owners voted to opt out of the existing agreement in the summer of 2017
— which would have almost certainly resulted in an owner lockout of the
players, something that’s happened four times since 1995.
Fortunately, for both Roberts and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, the huge
national TV rights increases agreed to by ABC/ESPN and Turner Sports (which runs
NBA.com) that would go into Basketball Related Income — $24 billion through
2024 — made the distribution of wealth go much, much smoother this time. The
union and the league agreed to a new seven-year CBA last December that ensures
labor peace through 2024.
Collectively, players will get billions more in larger salaries and larger
percentages for exceptions, while teams will (at least theoretically) be more
able to keep their own superstars, so that reruns of OKC’s loss of Kevin Durant
can be avoided by other teams in the future. The schedule will also be eased —
an earlier start to the regular season, that should eliminate all but a handful
of stretches of having to play four games in five nights, and many (not all)
back-to-back games.
But Roberts has also been overseeing the move of the players’ union offices from
tony digs in Harlem to a massive high-rise in midtown Manhattan, complete with a
full-length (not quite 94 feet) court, weight training space, cold and hot tubs,
whirlpools, meeting rooms for players and teams, quiet space for guys who want
to get away from it all for a while, and other amenities.
“When we were in Harlem, we’d see maybe six or seven players a year,” Roberts
says. Already, 12 teams have come by to visit and work out since the building
opened late last year. There are still many issues that the union is discussing
with the league — most notably, what to do with the proprietary information
teams get about players through the use of wearables and other emerging
technologies, and the union’s desire to take over its clients’ marketing over
from the league. But Roberts has achieved labor peace without losing any money
or dates. It’s the resume of a pioneer, whether you like the terminology or not
This interview was part of a feature on Roberts that will run on the next
edition of Beyond the Paint on NBATV on Feb. 24. It has been edited for length.
Me: You spent months getting a feel for what the players wanted. What did they
say was their priority?
Michele Roberts: It sort of varied. Obviously — I’m not going to be shy about
it — given how much money was coming into the game, there was clearly an
interest in making sure that the players’ share was going to be fair. That was
probably paramount. But the guys are interested in the same sort of working
conditions issues that other people are — so, length of season, back to backs,
all the wear and tear on the body, even the quality of their training staffs,
days off — the kinds of things that just about anybody would be interested in.
So we addressed all of it. We obviously addressed the economic issues, but the
CBA, if you have a chance — and, it’s long — if you have an opportunity to
review it, the variety of topics we addressed is really quite stunning.
Me: You can become paralyzed by reading about the history of anything, I’m sure.
Both from the people who had your job previously, and who had Adam’s job
previously — did you want to know as much as possible about the past
negotiations, or was less knowledge more valuable in this case?
MR: Sort of both. I mean, I had to do an autopsy of the prior CBAs to
understand, historically, what went on. And I did have the benefit of some staff
that had been there. Having said that, I did not want to repeat the same wars.
We actually approached the CBA in a way that was different from prior
negotiations. Based on my conversations with people and a review of the
affidavits, it was pretty clear that the negotiations typically began by talking
about BRI — the split. And needless to say, that went on indefinitely and
indefinitely, and clearly they did not come to any consensus, and we were locked
out. We decided that rather than only walk, we would walk and chew gum. We knew
all the issues we wanted to discuss. We invited the league to do the same. And
we put everything on the table and we began to talk about everything. So rather
than have everybody in the room for every issue, we had subcommittees. And the
committees were working simultaneous. So while we were having discussions about
BRI, we were also having discussions about work conditions. We were also having
discussions about wearables. We were also having discussions about length of
season. All that stuff could happen at the same time, and we were finding
consensus. And when you start realizing that you really can agree, when you get
to the really tough stuff, it’s a lot easier to find that you can probably agree
there, too.
Me: Given your background, I figure you’ve negotiated hundreds — maybe
thousands — of times. I wonder how you take the measure of opposing counsel —
in this case, Adam Silver?
MR: Even when I was a public defender and trying to get a deal for my client
charged with burglary, I understood that the prosecutor had an interest, and he
had an agenda, and he had a constituency that he had to be mindful of. It’s the
same thing with any negotiation — you need to understand what the person on the
other side of the V needs to get done, can’t do, probably will. And as long as
that person on the other side of the V is a) relatively intelligent, b) honest,
which I think is probably key, and c) is equally willing to appreciate what you
have to be mindful of, then you can get things done. I found Adam to be honest,
and that was, as I said, the key to me. I suggested, as we got to know each
other, I made a promise to him that I would never lie to him, and if I did, he
probably would know that I was lying to him. And I asked him to do the same. We
were able to operate from a position of respect, and I think our teams did the
same. Just don’t hide anything, don’t alter the truth, tell me what you really
think, and I’ll tell you what I really think, and let’s see if we can find some
common ground. They had a good team. They’re pretty sharp over there. And we’re
pretty good, too.
Me: The “smoothing” idea was something on which you did not agree as a union
with the league, and it didn’t come to pass. Sometimes, though, you can learn a
lot from disagreeing with someone. What did you learn from that exchange?
MR: I appreciate — I’ve always appreciated as a litigator — that first and
foremost to me is going to be my client. And I always understood that my
opponent had the same view. What I found interesting coming into this thing
relatively new was the sense was that the league’s bottom line was protections
of the owners. And they do. There’s no way Adam would have a job if he wasn’t
mindful of the owners. What I found really interesting about Adam, and some of
the members of his staff, and some owners, is that there is a protection of the
game. What was equally interesting was that our players had the same view. So
this was not something that I came into. As a litigator, this was my client,
that’s your client. I found people who were interested in their own respective
interests, but also interested in the game. It was just fascinating to watch
Chris Paul, and to have a conversation with Michael Jordan, about how this will
impact the game, be better for the game. Because at the end of the day, if our
game suffers, then we all suffer. It was encouraging that people were able to
not always have their own self-interest front and center, and on the occasion
when it was appropriate, think about what’s good for the game.
Me: Was it at all odd seeing Jordan sitting there, representing the owners’
position?
MR: I thought it was fabulous. One of the things — it was clear — was that he
was the one person in the room that could see both sides. And I think everybody
was mindful of that. So when Michael spoke, everybody really listened. Because
he just had the benefit of being both a player and now an owner. I was
absolutely enamored with the fact that he was there. Because he brought with him
a certain amount of credibility that I could both respect and the players could
respect. I don’t know why he became a member of the Negotiating Committee, but
it was a good move.
Me: When you took the job, you told me that you weren’t going to skip past the
idea that you had a lot to learn. It seems like you settled in early on the idea
of increasing benefits and services for retired players, preventive care
especially. I wonder how you got on that journey.
MR: Those issues were not “my” issues — they were player issues. And all of us,
current players, when we hear stories of retired players in a bad way
financially, it stuns everybody. Because “there, but for,” right? And so, again,
this is one of the beauties of having more money in the system — one can afford
to be more generous when there’s a little bit more money to work with. The
Executive Committee came up with wanting to explore our health program. And when
we began to check out the numbers, it not only appeared doable, but it made
sense both in respect to saying thank you — because our players are absolutely
mindful of whose shoulders they stand on — and on a more selfish note, it’s
something that they can look forward to going forward. So, heck, I remember when
I was in my 20s — I didn’t think about retirement, I didn’t think about health
insurance. Those were things that I didn’t think I had to worry about, because I
was going to live forever and I was invincible. And so I don’t blame players to
the extent that they’re not thinking about retirement, and pension, and healthy.
But the good news is that most of them were.
Me: How important was it not only to have Chris directly involved, but guys like
Carmelo and LeBron and some of the other superstars on the Executive Committee
— not just in name, but in deeds and sweat equity and being part of the
negotiations?
MR: Just as you guys pay a lot of attention to those players, the players pay a
lot of attention to those players, too. It was absolutely invaluable. And the
owners do. Let’s face it — these men are to be reckoned with. And to have them
be part of the team was just extraordinary. But I made this promise to Adam,
because I made this promise to the players: I don’t use players as props. I was
not going to have them come in the room and just sort of cross their arms and
look mean. It’s insulting to them, and it doesn’t work. We had, internally,
calls and memos with our guys to make sure we understood what they wanted and
for them to make sure they understood the league’s position, and sort of the
historical issues. There were insights that they brought to the discussions
that, frankly, I couldn’t, because I’ve been a fan for the last 50 years.
They’ve been playing for 10, 12. It would have been a different negotiation, I’m
confident, if we hadn’t taken in what the players had to say, or taken advantage
of the contributions they could make. They were fabulous, fabulous — up until
the very last second when we said we have a deal, I was on the phone with Chris,
J.J. (Redick), Melo, thank goodness, was in New York, LeBron was weighing in. I
know every single member of the Executive Committee was involved — including
Stevie Blake, until he left the game.
Me: You can only go by the experiences you’ve had as a person, so you may not be
able to answer this — but, do you think your gender helps you in negotations?
MR: No question about it. You know, we’re much smarter than you guys.
Me: That goes without saying.
MR: I think the answer is yes. And I don’t think women in general approach these
things with our hands clenched. I love men; I always have. But I think men tend
to get into an ego aspect to discussions, let alone negotiations. I mean, I’ve
negotiated with women lawyers, and women in business. And it’s just a totally
different look. So that’s part of it. And also, I’m less threatening, because
I’m a woman. And that’s silly. But in any event, I think to some extent, people
feel less threatened because I’m a woman. But I think most of it was, just my
approach to negotiations has always been, do you need a deal? And if the answer
is yes, then get one. I have no interest in strikes or lockouts or stomping out
of rooms or making someone cry, none of that crap. I want a deal. And as long as
you feel the same way, we can do that. The gender piece? Yeah. But I think most
of it was understanding that we’re not going to blow this game up. We need a
deal. Let’s just go ahead and behave in a way that can get us one.
Me: Is this a job you think you could have for the next 20 years?
MR: One of the things that I feel fairly strongly about is — and this is not
just this job — there are just some jobs that are in this category. What makes
this thing work is the influx of new, fresh, young ideas. I am 60 years old. I’m
not going to be here when I’m 80. I’m not going to be here when I’m 70. I may
not be here when I’m 65. I probably won’t. But there are so many young, talented
people that, every day, want to come work with us. They’re excited. They’re
exciting. And I do think that this is the kind of position that will only make
the union stronger if it continues to have people that are innovators and
exciting and not octogenarians running it. I do. I think it’s a young game. It’s
a young person’s game. I’m inspired by my very young staff, and I think it has a
lot to do with the fact that there is an amount of energy that this job
requires. And the forty-somethings do pretty well. That’s why they’re always
staring at me — ‘when are you leaving?’ I’m leaving. Don’t worry about it. I’m
not going to be here to 70.
TWEET OF THE WEEK
— Anna Horford, sister of Celtics forward Al Horford, responding to critics in
Atlanta who have occasionally taken shots at Al Horford’s play and impact in
Boston this season.
THEY SAID IT
“To be honest, I don’t think it’s that serious. Obviously, me and him have to
figure it out. But it feels like everybody’s trying to get in the car with us
and listen to our conversation when it has nothing to do with anybody else … at
some point, we will figure it out. But it feels like I got to call everybody and
say ‘I might talk to Russell today.’ ”
— Kevin Durant, to ESPN, on his estrangement from Russell Westbrook, before
KD’s return to Oklahoma City last Saturday.
“If there is a situation where I can look at myself in the mirror and say they
don’t have my best intentions, they don’t have the right attitude about taking
care of people, if I can say the leadership is not in line with my core values,
then there is no amount of money, there is no platform I wouldn’t jump off if it
wasn’t in line with who I am.”
— Stephen Curry, to the San Jose Mercury News’ Marcus Thompson, after Under
Armour CEO Kevin Plank had said earlier in the week that he believes President
Trump will be “a real asset” to the country. Curry told Thompson he spoke
directly with Plank, whose company’s endorsement deal with Curry is one of its
largest, to see if Under Armour was formally endorsing the President’s policies.
The company quickly released a statement explaining that Plank had been invited
by the President to serve on the American Manufacturing Council with other
business leaders.
“The next time I run up and down this floor, I’ll probably be in an old man’s
league that plays before the game, at 3 o’clock.”
— Paul Pierce, after playing his final game in Boston at TD Garden last Sunday,
with the Clippers — and whose last shot in the final seconds was, fittingly, a
3-pointer that hit nothing but net.
More Morning Tip: Thunder stand firm behind Westbrook | DA’s Top 15 Rankings |
Korver adjusts to playing with LeBron
Longtime NBA reporter, columnist and Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Famer
David Aldridge is an analyst for TNT. You can e-mail him here, find his archive
here and follow him on Twitter.
The views on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBA, its
clubs or Turner Broadcasting.
