Famous reporter: No matter what the outcome of the Xiaoka incident, the alliance will improve a stricter labor-management agreement.

TA famous reporter John Hollinger analyzed the incidents of Leonard and the Clippers suspected of evading the salary cap based on the labor-cap agreement.

Hollinger said that no matter what the alliance handles the Leonard incident, the alliance will formulate more complete and strict terms in the next labor-management agreement to avoid rule loopholes.

It is understood that when the league formulates terms prohibiting evasion of the salary cap, it is worried that the stars will sign basic salary or small-scale exceptions, and then secretly stuff money into their pockets through huge off-court contracts, without considering that maximum-paid players will do such things. So too much attention is paid to the use of an unreasonable contract as indirect evidence, but without considering that an unreasonable off-site contract should also be equally strong evidence.

Hollinger also said that there are more stringent similar regulations in the NCAA. It is understood that there is a rule in the NCAA called "Laboring organizational supervision" that requires teams to take measures to ensure that players comply with the rules, including regulating players. In this incident, Ballmer and the Clippers claimed that Leonard's contract was a unilateral act of the sponsor's fraud company, which is exactly the same as what the NCAA has ever experienced. Before NIL contracts prevailed, there were always people secretly providing cash and luxury cars to young players, and team management would claim they were unaware of it. The NCAA finally thought of a way to deal with this issue, which roughly stipulates that understanding the player's situation is the team's responsibility, and unaware of it cannot be used as a reason for defense. If a third related team provides financial support to the players, the team must find a way to organize it, otherwise it will also be punished.

Hollinger said this is the first time that the labor-cap agreement has been challenged after the Joe-Smith incident. This may be a loophole in the league in this provision, if the next round of labor-capital agreements clearly state that the team cannot claim to provide illegal financial support to the sponsors for players without any knowledge, the team's responsibility is to understand and monitor the agreement between the sponsor and the player and ensure that all agreements comply with the rules of the labor-capital agreement. Then the problems similar to the Leonard incident will be solved. This avoids the tedious task of finding solid evidence, and returns to the core of prohibiting evasion of the salary cap: if it looks like evasion, the alliance will see it as evasion.

Judging from the current situation, Leonard's situation is a typical "lack of organizational supervision". Ballmer didn't know that his investment in Aspiration made Leonard a lot of money, but this was consistent with the result he did on purpose, and it was a kind of act of avoiding the salary cap. In future versions of the labor and capital agreement, filling in this loophole can make it more difficult to implement evasion of the wage cap.

Related news: Players' signing is lower than the market price to compensate from off-court is to avoid the salary cap. The league did not consider the maximum salary of small cards.

Famous reporters talked about the incident of small cards: If it looks like a duck and screams like a duck, then it is a duck.