Still matters that this happened. The players have seen what they can do. Maybe next time it's less chaotic and there's less apprehension. Even if there's no next time, it's been a wake-up call for a lot of people who aren't NBA players. https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/1299012762002231299?s=20

There's a lot to critique about how this strike went down, and maybe it would've lasted longer or gotten more results if it had been more organized and better executed. But the Bucks went out on a huge limb and maybe changed the world. And they did so basically flying blind.

It's easy to say "they should've kept striking for the sake of workers worldwide" but maybe the majority of NBA players didn't want to sacrifice so much or just aren't radical (yet). Can't fault them for not doing what you want them to do politically.

Do I think it would've been in NBA players' best interests to strike and ask for a far-ranging list of clear demands? Do I think they were in a position to get stuff they wanted and there's no downside to that? Sure. But you can't get mad at them for not doing radicalism.

Some NBA players get how labor works and have the proper consciousness blah blah but some don't. Some maybe just are more middle-of-the-road politically. Maybe they could be converted. Maybe they're getting it now. But you can't blame them for not doing the strike you wanted.

All this said, everybody should take a good hard look at the NBPA. A union should be leading & lighting the way here, encouraging workers to understand what they could accomplish, if not pushing for a strike. Its job is to frame things in terms of worker power. The NBPA, tho...

I kind of want to link to the many things I've written over the last couple years about how the NBPA does (and doesn't work), how it's standing in the way of players radicalism, and what the missed opportunity is there. Maybe later, use Google if you care that much.