08-07-2026, 05:37 PM
I wonder if the NBA might face an obstacle based on the way they define "circumvention" in a situation of weird pay from an outside party somehow connected to the team. There is a CBA 2-pronged test, and BOTH must be true:
(i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party; and
(ii) the Compensation in the Player Contract between the player and the Team is substantially below the fair market value of such Contract.
It looks like the first might be true but the 2nd is not. LAC is paying him (and being cap-charged) for the most money possible, so his contract itself is not circumventing the cap.
A contract like Lebron's is the kind that might fit that 2nd criteria, if he's getting additional compensation to make up for the shortened amount in his pay this year.
I do believe that if Ballmer is walking right inside the rules line as written, the NBA won't win the hearing, no matter how sketchy it looks.
(i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party; and
(ii) the Compensation in the Player Contract between the player and the Team is substantially below the fair market value of such Contract.
It looks like the first might be true but the 2nd is not. LAC is paying him (and being cap-charged) for the most money possible, so his contract itself is not circumventing the cap.
A contract like Lebron's is the kind that might fit that 2nd criteria, if he's getting additional compensation to make up for the shortened amount in his pay this year.
I do believe that if Ballmer is walking right inside the rules line as written, the NBA won't win the hearing, no matter how sketchy it looks.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)