What exactly are NBA players fighting for?

For weeks, the sputtering NBA labor negotiations have leaned on rotating villains to keep the story line moving.

First, it was Celtics center Kevin Garnett, who reportedly snarled something at the table about the players not agreeing to any less than a 53 percent take of the basketball-related income.

Then it was Trail Blazers owner Paul Allen, the richest of NBA bosses, supposedly taking a hard line on salaries by staring in silence at the players' proposals.

Michael Jordan joined the list when he was pegged as a hard-line owner. During the 1998-99 lockout, Jordan famously told late Wizards owner Abe Pollin, “If you can't make a profit, sell your team.”

Now that Jordan is a small-market owner in Charlotte, he has found new inspiration with a team that struggles to break even, is locked into a long-term arena lease and would likely sell for less than Jordan paid for it.

Hypocritical? No, Jordan is just facing a new reality on the other side of the checkbook.

Finally, we had union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler chime in with one of the all-time idiotic sports statements when he said NBA owners were treating the players “like plantation workers.” He later apologized.

This all led to the recent false climax, when Commissioner David Stern announced the league was done negotiating, before the players decided Monday to take the fight to court.

The only real certainty right now is the lockout will continue to linger.

The question worth asking, though, is, “What exactly are the players fighting for?”

Keep in mind, the collective-bargaining agreement that resulted from the 1998-99 lockout was no cave-in by the players. It was a 720-degree slam dunk for the league's highest-paid employees.

Anyone who could stick in the league for more than three years got stinking rich. And thanks to hefty annual raises and fully guaranteed contracts, some players didn't even have to do much to earn their money.

If the league-influenced accounts can be believed, the owners' proposal still includes the soft salary cap, still includes Bird Rights, still includes fully guaranteed contracts and does not eliminate the midlevel exception, which allows teams to sign free agents even if they're over the salary cap.

The proposed revenue split is supposed to be at 50-50 right now, which is a sizable jump from the 57 percent the players had in the last CBA. But that contract was negotiated during boom times. There had to be an adjustment for the recession, and the players realized that.

But assuming the 50-50 split is reasonable to the players, what is the key issue? Are they willing to cancel the season over a stronger luxury tax? Over a proposal to limit the midlevel exception for taxpaying teams? Over eliminating sign-and-trades for teams over the tax threshold?

Sure, this deal may not be ideal for the players, compared to what they had before. But the league is offering to keep all of those tools that made being an NBA player one of the most coveted jobs in the universe.

What the players association has to gain from decertifying the union is anyone's guess. There's a small threat that things eventually could go against the league in a court fight but not much tangible benefit to the move.

The NFL players association decertified the union right away when its lockout began earlier this year. The union won some decisions in court, lost others and, ultimately, the two sides negotiated a deal.

The '98-99 lockout only delayed the Tim Floyd era, as far as the Bulls were concerned. Now, they consider themselves title contenders, so this can't end soon enough for the local franchise.

For all those people who earn a living by working at NBA arenas, the lunacy lingers on.