Phee and Stewie Unrivaled

[psconn]

Good read about 2 of our legends...

Unrivaled

Forgive Napheesa Collier and Breanna Stewart for not gushing over the success of Unrivaled, the three on three women’s basketball league they cofounded.

magazine.uconn.edu

 

[Cuango]

Two great UConn legends! I wish them well with their venture.
However, it must be said that there is a giant elephant in the room that everyone (most everyone) is simply ignoring. How is it possible to have two owners of a rival league negotiating the terms of the CBA for the WNBA? This is really a travesty that diminishes the look of the W as a “professional” organization! There is no way this would be allowed in any other league/business. They (Stewie & Phee) should recuse themselves from any part of this negotiation and let others who have no conflict of interest handle it instead. It really speaks to the abject cowardice of the League/owners that they have allowed this to go on!

 

[YKCornelius]

Two great UConn legends! I wish them well with their venture.
However, it must be said that there is a giant elephant in the room that everyone (most everyone) is simply ignoring. How is it possible to have two owners of a rival league negotiating the terms of the CBA for the WNBA? This is really a travesty that diminishes the look of the W as a “professional” organization! There is no way this would be allowed in any other league/business. They (Stewie & Phee) should recuse themselves from any part of this negotiation and let others who have no conflict of interest handle it instead. It really speaks to the abject cowardice of the League/owners that they have allowed this to go on!

Say what? Explain to me the conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that Pheesa or Stewie would not represent the players in good faith in some way? What is to gain for doing so? Unrivaled plays in the off-season as an alternative to going overseas. It does not infringe on the WNBA at all.

They are the PERFECT representatives for CBA negotiations due to their knowledge of revenue sharing vis-a-vis Unrivaled.

 

[Cuango]

Say what? Explain to me the conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that Pheesa or Stewie would not represent the players in good faith in some way? What is to gain for doing so? Unrivaled plays in the off-season as an alternative to going overseas. It does not infringe on the WNBA at all.

They are the PERFECT representatives for CBA negotiations due to their knowledge of revenue sharing vis-a-vis Unrivaled.

It does not matter if they would or would not represent the players in good faith! It is no different from when judges are required to recuse themselves from cases where they have some sort of personal connection/interest! It is the appearance of possible impropriety that is the issue here, not whether they would or would not act upon it.

 

[Dogdude]

Well, the players chose their reps in these negotiations, the owners have no say in who reps the players. There's no legal issue here at all, nothing in any contract anywhere that prohibits this, so it's totally allowable. Can you honestly say that in the business world today that appearances matter? It's business, not a court of law. The owners have the ball in their court now; they backed themselves into this corner, now negotiate in good faith or lose viewership and fans. Fan sentiment is totally behind the players, so Phee and Stewie are the perfect pair to bring to the table, they know the business side as well as, apparently, the commissioner.

 

[YKCornelius]

It does not matter if they would or would not represent the players in good faith! It is no different from when judges are required to recuse themselves from cases where they have some sort of personal connection/interest! It is the appearance of possible impropriety that is the issue here, not whether they would or would not act upon it.

Well, actually, it DOES matter if they weren't representing the players in good faith, although I also agree with your position that the appearance of impropriety could/should be an important consideration also.

That said, you haven't answered my question: what is the possible impropriety that you are raising up as "the giant elephant in the room"? This is an especially germane question if you discount any possible appearance of impropriety for not operating in good faith - which, I believe, you took off the table.

What is it exactly that you see as a red flag conflict of interest? Your contention that Unrivaled is a rival league to the WNBA is incorrect. So what is it?

 

[Crossover]

Two great UConn legends! I wish them well with their venture.
However, it must be said that there is a giant elephant in the room that everyone (most everyone) is simply ignoring. How is it possible to have two owners of a rival league negotiating the terms of the CBA for the WNBA? This is really a travesty that diminishes the look of the W as a “professional” organization! There is no way this would be allowed in any other league/business. They (Stewie & Phee) should recuse themselves from any part of this negotiation and let others who have no conflict of interest handle it instead. It really speaks to the abject cowardice of the League/owners that they have allowed this to go on!

"Giant elephant"? "Travesty"? What exactly is the conflict of interest, or appearance of same, that almost everyone but you is ignoring? Are you suggesting that the owners of Unrivaled have an interest in suppressing WNBA salaries, benefits, etc.? That they have an interest in holding out for greater salaries, benefits etc. than are reasonable or justified? Neither of these makes sense to me. I think it is in Unrivaled's interest that the W flourish. Or is your concern that the interests of Unrivaled's owners might be antagonistic to the interests of the W's owners? How so, apart from the antagonism (or adverse interests) that exist between all W players and W ownership? In any event, as others have noted, Phee and Stewie represent the W's players, not it's ownership. It is already apparent that the existence of Unrivaled, and it's culture of providing maximal support for it's athletes, strengthens the resolve of the W's players, and puts pressure on its owners to do better.

 

[Cuango]

If you can’t see/acknowledge that they are representing two competing sets of players from competitive leagues/entities, then I guess we’ll just have to disagree. The W is negotiating a CBA with two owners of what (whether you wish to admit it or not) is a competing business that could clearly benefit if the W were to impose or suffer a lockout/walkout and/or probably in many other ways that I am not smart enough to articulate. I love both of these young women but to argue that there is no conflict of interest here is simply ludicrous. To each his/her own though.

 

[Rb335]

Say what? Explain to me the conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that Pheesa or Stewie would not represent the players in good faith in some way? What is to gain for doing so? Unrivaled plays in the off-season as an alternative to going overseas. It does not infringe on the WNBA at all.

They are the PERFECT representatives for CBA negotiations due to their knowledge of revenue sharing vis-a-vis Unrivaled.

Let’s say hypothetically the WNBA agrees to massive salary increases and the revenue sharing the players are seeking. But in return wants to implement a stricter prioritization rule, where the W has exclusive rights to players and rostered players can’t play in other leagues during the offseason. It’s not far fetched that the W would want to protect players from the risk of injury, given the higher investment they are making into the players. A rule like that would threaten unrivaled’s future.

Unrivaled doesn’t employ every W player. I’m sure certain players in the W would happily accept that rule for the increased pay. Owners of an alternative league probably would want to fight that.

I happen to think both Stewie and Collier are incredible advocates, and I would trust them to negotiate in good faith. But I can also see how the lines are very blurry and some people would be skeptical. I also think it’s in the best interest of the W to find a way to leverage unrivaled that benefits both leagues.

 

[YKCornelius]

Let’s say hypothetically the WNBA agrees to massive salary increases and the revenue sharing the players are seeking. But in return wants to implement a stricter prioritization rule, where the W has exclusive rights to players and rostered players can’t play in other leagues during the offseason. It’s not far fetched that the W would want to protect players from the risk of injury, given the higher investment they are making into the players. A rule like that would threaten unrivaled’s future.

Unrivaled doesn’t employ every W player. I’m sure certain players in the W would happily accept that rule for the increased pay. Owners of an alternative league probably would want to fight that.

I happen to think both Stewie and Collier are incredible advocates, and I would trust them to negotiate in good faith. But I can also see how the lines are very blurry and some people would be skeptical. I also think it’s in the best interest of the W to find a way to leverage unrivaled that benefits both leagues.

Rb355, you raise an interesting hypothetical scenario for sure. I suppose that if arrangements could be proposed where salaries and revenue sharing (and other favorable guarantees) were substantially far and above where the players currently stand then those would certainly have to be considered, first by the player representatives and then by the players en masse.

In addition to exclusivity clauses with other leagues, there are dozens of hypothetical permutations that could be raised by owners, including restrictions on international play such as EuroCup, World Cup and Olympics as examples. I bring these examples to the forefront to address your point I placed in bold font. Simply put, there is a wide swath of players who would opt to stay away from the WNBA - regardless of guaranteed increased pay and revenue sharing - if "investment restrictions" (my term) on further professional development avenues were brought into negotiations by the owners (hypothetically speaking, of course).

In other words, it is not just about who is in Unrivaled, or who is playing overseas off-season, nor is it about how individuals would respond to specific owners' proposals. The CBA effects all players, so in any and all of these hypothetical proposals, the player representatives have to take negotiation positions across many aisles, and ultimately bring them back to the players association.

At this point, I do not see any blurry lines that you apparently do. In fact, I am on the other side of the street: If the owners do indeed take a position espousing "investment restrictions", I think having owners of alternative off-season leagues at the table is ideal - as long as they advocate for ALL alternative off-season leagues and not just their own. This seems both wise and prudent.

I agree with you that Stewie and Pheesa are incredible advocates, and I, too, would trust them to negotiate in good faith - and with transparency to their fellow players - across all lines of effort.

Bottom line as it relates back to my earlier post: I fail to see how the possibility of hypotheticals would suggest that player representatives should recuse themselves in negotiations at this juncture. IMO, it makes more sense to cross any hypothetical bridges when they actually present themselves.

Good discussion. You make some valid points. I appreciate the alternative view.

 

[Dogdude]

It's interesting to see parallels from alternative business worlds. For example, in my business, I deal with many subcontractors, who also work for others in my exact line of work, therefor, my competitors. I have to meet two criteria for them to consider working for me vs. a competitor. 1: I have to have a pleasant work environment, calm, organized and efficient, so they know they can get in, get their work done, and get out quickly in order to maximize their profit. 2: I have to pay well. There's some sort of balancing act going on with each individual subcontractor; good pay vs. good work environment. Sometimes people pay well, but are a pain in the neck. A guy can take two less-well paying clients, but get the jobs done quicker and with less stress, and end up making more. There's no conflict of interest in these business working for multiple competitors, everyone knows what's going on, you just need to offer a better combination if you want the best producers.

The W and the players are in a similar dynamic. Pay is an issue, but also working conditions, and as mentioned above, the ability to work for other leagues when not working for the W. If I'm going to be held to only one employer at the expense of others, that pay better be really good. And I kind of doubt that it will be that good. The league got far more media attention with the Phee/Englebert blowup than the actual finals, so I doubt their position is quite that strong. It's getting there, but not quite yet.

 

[Sifaka]

How is it possible to have two owners of a rival league negotiating the terms of the CBA for the WNBA?

A rival league would play the same 5 vs. 5 game. There is no rivalry between totally different games.

A rival legue would have the same, or at least overlapping, seasons. There is no overlap, hence no rivalry.

A rival league would compete for the services of the same players. As players can play in both leagues, there is no rivalry.

The compensation schemes of the leagues are different in both structure and amount. That is not rivalry.

The underpinnings of the claim that these are rival leagues are made of gelatin.

 

[EricLA]

A rival league would play the same 5 vs. 5 game. There is no rivalry between totally different games.

A rival legue would have the same, or at least overlapping, seasons. There is no overlap, hence no rivalry.

A rival league would compete for the services of the same players. As players can play in both leagues, there is no rivalry.

The compensation schemes of the leagues are different in both structure and amount. That is not rivalry.

The underpinnings of the claim that these are rival leagues are made of gelatin.

💯

I have never understood the incorrect narrative that people continue to push that Unrivaled and AU are "rival" leagues to the W. Maybe people feel that if they say the same wrong thing often enough, people will actually believe it to be true. According to the dictionary... A "rival" is a person, organization, or thing that competes with another for the same goal, prize, or position. Simply not true with regard to the W and Unrivaled. Not even close.

It's like saying Wimbledon is a rival league to the US Open and French Open. Or that the Boston Marathon is a rival to the NY Marathon. Or that the US Formual 1 Grand Prix is a rival to the Italian Grand Prix. Or that the US Open golf tournament is a rival to the British Open. It's so illogical that it's comical that anyone keeps pushing that narrative.

Just to dumb it down even further. Alcarez and Sinner or Swiatek and Sabylenka are rivals in tennis. They compete DIRECTLY against each other for the Wimbledon or US Open championship. The Las Vegas Aces and the Rose Basketball Club are NOT even close to rivals.

Different seasons, no overlap in the calendar. It's just so obvious. It seems that the biggest complaint the W has is that Unrivaled is TOO successful and pays the players too much, thus causing embarrassment to the WNBA. That's not a rivalry. Just a better league.

 

[Dogdude]

I think the wild card, and I'll say right now that I think it's unlikely, is that if the negotiations really break down, and I mean total collapse, would Unrivaled try to expand to compete directly? I doubt it, but there's always that question... that's where the intrigue comes in, not in thinking that there's a current rivalry.

 

[Cuango]

A rival league would play the same 5 vs. 5 game. There is no rivalry between totally different games.

A rival legue would have the same, or at least overlapping, seasons. There is no overlap, hence no rivalry.

A rival league would compete for the services of the same players. As players can play in both leagues, there is no rivalry.

The compensation schemes of the leagues are different in both structure and amount. That is not rivalry.

The underpinnings of the claim that these are rival leagues are made of gelatin.

Sure, whatever. I guess Ferrari is not in competition with Volvo? A hamburger joint is not in competition with a sushi joint? Both leagues play basketball, in arenas for profit! I missed the reference with the gelatin! That one went right over my head! Clearly you are a wordsmith of no mean ability! Gelatin! Good one!

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

Sure, whatever. I guess Ferrari is not in competition with Volvo? A hamburger joint is not in competition with a sushi joint? Both leagues play basketball, in arenas for profit! I missed the reference with the gelatin! That one went right over my head! Clearly you are a wordsmith of no mean ability! Gelatin! Good one!

From this post:

Facts and circumstances matter when determining if there is a conflict of interest (divided loyalties, trade secrets, etc.).

Additional facts and circumstances about Unrivaled are here and here. It makes clear that Unrivaled’s “facts and circumstances” doesn’t make it a rival.

Your examples of Volvo vs Ferrari and different eating establishments is a strawman’s fallacy. And the way you invoke it is not how conflicts of interest work.

For example, if a chef decides annually to work for a hamburger joint in NY for the summer and fall and to work for a sushi joint in California for the winter and spring, there is no conflict of interest. Swap engineer for chefs and car companies for eating establishments and there could be.

 

[WiseWillie]

Enjoying reading all of these viewpoints. There are many on here who would be great negotiators. Anyway, keep up the respectful dialogue. It's lot better than what's on tv!