Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 477 posts

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#71

Post by ivankolev »

danem wrote: post #58
tw04 wrote: post #20

The NBA really needs to grow a spine on this one. They have nothing to lose but incremental profits and in the long run China will lose. It will just be one more reminder for the populace that their current government restricts them from luxuries the rest of the world gets to experience. And if that doesn't bother them, good riddance I guess, it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league th…

> it's not like China is going to come up with their own basketball league that's going to overtake the NBA, ever. Why not? Is it inconceivable that in the future the CBA will be able to compete with the NBA for top talent? I guarantee that down the road a future Zion Williamson will choose to play in China over New Orleans. This won't be in the near future mind you, but as the Chinese economy grows, and as basketbal…

Not likely, players (not superstars) can already make more money in Euroleague yet everyone given a choice wants to play at the highest level, which is NBA. Superstars even more so, Kawhi Leonard won a title in Toronto but chose to go back home in LA, for less guaranteed money.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#72

Post by fhood »

China presents a huge opportunity for growth to the NBA, and this is a really crucial period for them as it seems like the NFL's stranglehold might be weakening and extra money to reinvest might help that process. I don't understand how people can act like losing the Chinese market is some sort of trivial decision?!?

I would love for the NBA to stand up to China on this issue, but it IS NOT AN EASY OR OBVIOUS DECISION.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#74

Post by ianleeclark »

5trokerac3 wrote: post #50
justaduderr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, are you going to post about the many US atrocities as well? Slavery, extermination of the indigenous population, redlining, Jim Crow, exploitation of illegal immigrant labor, etc. Keep in mind this isn't even counting what the USA does abroad. China is bad, but USA is bad too. Make no mistake.

Everything from that list is from within the last 60 years. While China was murdering between 60 to 100 million of its citizens, America passed the Civil Rights Act.

> America passed the Civil Rights Act

It's important to note that America didn't pass the Civil Rights Act, it was forced to pass it by an unjustly subjugated population that had revolutionary potential. As a white settler state, America would have been fine to keep on going with an internal colony as far as it could have--this is literally the major precursor of the civil war.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#75

Post by uoaei »

sorenn111 wrote: post #63
whitebread wrote: post #45

Can we relax with the self-made, altruistic view of billionaires? Self-made is a myth, and an NBA owner just released a book titled "Shut Up and Listen." Money talks, and it seems pretty clear that all of the moves previously made were actually for profits, not social causes.

How is self-made a myth? Not saying all billionaires should be envied, praised, etc. I'm sure many are huge manipulative asshole. But many also came from very modest to virtually no means, how is that a myth?

"Self-made" is almost always a misnomer because there's a point very early in the process of accruing wealth where you use it to bootstrap its own operations, i.e., you start paying other people for their output to collect a net profit. At that point, "self-made" no longer applies because now other people are involved. At what point that transition happens determines how "self-made" they are, but no one is ever 100% that, and if we go by "percentage of current wealth needed to bootstrap" it's certainly well below 1%.

The global nature of today's economy, the complexity of navigating commerce and industry, and the sheer magnitude of output required to be profitable, makes it hard to do anything all by yourself. If we consider each person their own island with cash in- and outflow, then everyone is self-made. If we consider the global network of money changing hands, no one is self-made.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#76

Post by rtkwe »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #24

The NBA boycotted North Carolina over HB2 (the “bathroom bill”), but doesn’t have a problem doing business in China. I hope they go bankrupt.

North Carolina didn't have 4 billion dollars and a 1.3 billion person potential market to dangle in front of the NBA is why.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#77

Post by ALittleLight »

Shivetya wrote: post #27

NBA? How about the US government? I know in another post I made the point that we could not just call out Blizzard or other game companies but instead have to call out ALL companies that do business in China and worse crack down on their own and related who dare say something China does not approve of. However the real party that has to be taken to task is our own governments. In the US that means both Congress and t…

I think it's the opposite if you actually want to make a difference. Pressure works best when it's concentrated. Protesting every, or most, or many companies will be extremely difficult and likely make no difference. Targeting a single egregious offender and punishing them until they change will motivate other companies not to be the nail sticking out lest they face the hammer of public opinion.

Sadly, I think there's not enough public will to punish entities like the NBA or Blizzard for their servile behavior.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#78

Post by sidlls »

sorenn111 wrote: post #63
whitebread wrote: post #45

Can we relax with the self-made, altruistic view of billionaires? Self-made is a myth, and an NBA owner just released a book titled "Shut Up and Listen." Money talks, and it seems pretty clear that all of the moves previously made were actually for profits, not social causes.

How is self-made a myth? Not saying all billionaires should be envied, praised, etc. I'm sure many are huge manipulative asshole. But many also came from very modest to virtually no means, how is that a myth?

"Many" is a fuzzy term. The vast majority of wealthy people started with substantial means. The only self-made billionaire in tech that comes to mind is the creator of WhatsApp, and even he had a great network and connections available to only a miniscule fraction of individuals by the time that took off. I'm sure there are a few more, but it's simply misleading to say "many" when you mean "some, an almost unmeasurably small percentage, in fact."

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#79

Post by deeg »

nostromo wrote: post #14

It's not much of a dilemma though, is it? Already-rich folks kowtowing to fascists for a quick buck is beyond pathetic. US companies should stop targeting China for growth. If they don't steal your IP completely, they'll eventually freeze you out like they just did the NBA. It's happened to many companies and will eventually happen to you too. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I generally dislike this solution but could this be countered with a lawsuit? Meaning, could Morey sue the NBA? I know the 1st Amendment doesn't really apply to corporations so it probably doesn't come into play.

Re: NBA's China dilemma: $4B at risk as Chinese TV cancels game broadcasts

#80

Post by lern_too_spel »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #66
lern_too_spel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did one thing right but did another thing wrong. Is that worse than doing two things wrong?

No, it only shows that they essentially have no principles at all, or at least none that they’re willing to lose money over (which is ultimately the same thing). It’s always useful when someone reveals their true moral fiber, as the NBA has done.

Why are both the same thing? If it doesn't cost me anything to fight injustice and I don't do it, that is strictly worse than if it doesn't cost me to fight injustice and I do.

Suppose the NBA gave the middle finger to Saudi Arabia but cozied up to China, would that be worse than if they cozied up to both? Your stance is wildly illogical.

Post reply on HN