Commissioner Chito Salud said he’s open to suggesting more items in the agenda. It’s not often that the owners will convene as a body to discuss topics of vital importance to the PBA. A suggestion has been made to include the case of the Barako Bull franchise as an item for discussion.

Perhaps, another item could be the salary cap – how to address it, how to enforce it and how to make the league benefit from it.

There is widespread speculation that some teams aren’t abiding by the cap of P36 million a year. Under PBA rules, a team is allowed to spend up to only P36 million a year for salaries. The minimum salary is P30,000 and the maximum is P350,000 a month. The least length for a contract is one month. The PBA has also set limits for bonuses – P4,000 for wins before the semifinals, P6,000 for the semifinals and P8,000 for the finals. There are ceilings for bonuses as a team advances – for the semifinals, a half-month’s salary, for the finals, a full month’s salary and for capturing the championship, a month and a half’s salary. The league restricts a player’s total bonuses in a conference to 40 percent of his annual salary.

The maximum a player may earn from bonuses in the ongoing Philippine Cup is P1.17 million, assuming his team wins 14 games in the eliminations, his salary is P350,000 a month and his team wins the championship. The bonus would be less than 30 percent of his annual salary of P4.2 million.

* * * *

According to PBA operations and technical director Rickie Santos, the league is studying the possibility of increasing the salary cap by 20 percent. The cap of P36 million was instituted three years ago and may need to be updated.

PBA media bureau chief Willy Marcial said as far as the league is concerned, all teams are abiding by the rules of the cap. The players’ BIR forms show conformity to the limits.

In the NBA, teams abide by what is called a “soft” salary cap, meaning a ceiling with several ways to exceed it by exception. A team is allowed to go over the salary cap by signing players under exception clauses including the retention of a free agent and the replacement of an injured player. The league imposes a “luxury tax” on teams that exceed the cap. In 2005-06, for instance, the New York Knicks went over the salary cap by $74.7 million and paid a luxury tax of $62.3 million to the league. The luxury tax was distributed to those teams that were under the limit so those with less benefited from the largesse of those with more.

This season, the NBA salary cap is $58 million with an average salary of close to $6 million a year.

In the PBA, some teams provide players with extra means to earn a living. That’s difficult to quantify because they’re usually business propositions where you can lose or make money. But teams shouldn’t be faulted for taking care of players with a long-term vision. In fact, teams should be recognized for showing concern by giving players a livelihood option outside of basketball. After all, a player’s career is limited and not too many cagers are able to enjoy longevity like a Robert Jaworski.

Santos said perks for a player, such as a car, should be declared and included in the computation of his salary.

* * * *

For sure, there are teams more capable of paying higher salaries than others. Perhaps, the league should find a way to “tax” the “haves” to benefit the “have-nots” as commissioner David Stern does in the NBA via the luxury tax scheme. Transparency is critical and if the team owners believe in maintaining a vibrant league, they should think beyond their individual interests. They should be up front in laying their cards on the table.

It’s a fact that some players agree to pay-cuts for the chance to play for a championship team. LeBron James could’ve earned more by staying in Cleveland than moving to Miami but money wasn’t as high a priority as playing for a winning team. It’s not fair to label high-powered PBA teams as outright violators of the salary cap. But surely, there must be a way to distribute the wealth to less-powered teams for the good of the league as a whole. This is not meant to subsidize teams that can’t afford to form a competitive lineup. This is meant to “tax” teams that want to exceed the salary cap.

If it’s true that wealthy teams “lend” their practice players to other teams while continuing to pay their salaries, then this dubious ploy must be stopped. Obviously, this is a surreptitious way of distributing wealth. Again, the key is transparency. A “luxury tax” scheme will not hide anything and anyone can actually trace where the money goes.

There are serious matters to take up in the owners meeting – matters that should redound to making the league more exciting, more competitive and more appealing to fans. The idea of building a self-owned stadium may not be too relevant at the moment. The priority should be to protect the league’s well-being and health for the future by fortifying every franchise and assuring a level playing field. The goal is to consolidate not dissipate. Why throw billions into building a stadium when there are alternative venues like the Araneta Coliseum and the soon-to-be-built SM arena? The SM Group could even be more of a partner if it owns a PBA franchise.

Joaquin Henson, Philippine Star