> obviously soccer and basketball aren't apples to apples.

Which is why your comparison messi isn't very good. In fact if you read past the headline, your link explains why.

think it's an interesting data point nonetheless, Barcelona and the Lakers are worth about the same amount. Barcelona takes in a bit more than 2x the revenue, but Messi is paid about 5x more. both are arguably the best/most popular players in their sport. hard to find perfect comparisons, so take it all with a grain of salt. if there is a better comp would be really interested to see it, this is the best I could find.

If the NBA player union disappeared tomorrow and Lebron was able to renegotiate his contract he still wouldn't be paid close to messi. The player union isn't capping his salary, the salary cap is. One of the things the player union fights for is to increase the salary cap so all of its members can be paid more. This is an example of an union getting its top performers higher salaries, not the inverse like you're suggesting.

1. Would LeBron generate less money for his team/league the gap between him and the next best is slightly less?

2. Does the NBA give LeBron a platform to make 2x more than his NBA salary in endorsements? (Yes.)

don't understand the first question

as for the second point, not sure what this has to do with the original comment/point, specifically the fact that lebron is proof against the idea that "Unions depress wages for top performers". obviously a lot of complex dynamics here, and one could argue that the nba players union has helped make the nba more successful and all the money that came with that. just pointing out that using lebron as a counterargument to the original comment about wages (ie his nba salary) is a bit ironic.