� From across the pond... | Home | Blunkett resignation should be a lesson to Sgro �
December 15, 2004
There is something seriously wrong with the economics of the NHL.
For years, the National Hockey League Players Union was able run the table against the team owners and the league in the course of collective bargaining. They successfully made the economic argument in favour of their demands with a simple statement: "If we don't play hockey, the owners lose money."
They were right, the owners knew that and gave in.
Somewhere since the last Collective Bargaining Agreement was reached ten years ago, things changed. Today the owners have the upper hand because they lose less money by shutting down the business. They feel they need a salary cap to keep player wages in line and even believe that the long-term pain of the lockout (less revenue from fans in arenas or watching on television after the league resumes play) is worth it. That's how screwed up the economics of the NHL are. The owners are trying to save the league by shutting it down.
The players (whose salaries have tripled in the last ten years) think this is some kind of a ruse or deception and believe the owners and the league are trying to stick it to them because they make too much money. Their union does not believe the economics of hockey have changed that much (it is all part of the owners' deception - they must be hiding their oodles of cash in their mattresses), but did finally acknowledge this week that things had changed - a bit.
They tabled a proposal for a one-year universal salary roll-back of 24%, but the salary cap is a non-starter. The NHL responded to that by proposing a graduated roll-back so that players at the bottom end (341 players making a paltry $800,000 per year or less) would not get a pay cut while those at the top (41 players making $5-million or more) would have their salaries slashed by 35% and there would be a salary cap.
It was a transparent attempt to divide the union's rich versus the 'not so rich' and even players who have taken a few to many pucks to the head could see through the NHL's veil of 'fairness.' Whatever the league's motives, however, the thing that has not changed is that the owners believe that hockey without a salary cap is worse for them than no hockey at all. What the players don't understand is that owners are steadfast - there will be no NHL hockey without a salary cap. That's the reality, and the owners are willing to tear down the house to make it a reality.
So here we are in mid-December, no meetings of the players and owners are scheduled, there is no deal in sight, the two sides are trapped in a spiral of mistrust and, simply put, this year's NHL season is in jeopardy. If the season is lost, major changes could be on the horizon including a reduction in the number of teams or possibly a complete shutdown of the NHL to be replaced by a new league populated by unknown replacement players.
It is time for an honest broker. Someone both sides can trust enough to help them find the necessary common ground.
Posted by maxthecat on December 15, 2004 at 10:51 AM
| Printer-friendly version
Filed in: Sports
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.maxsmewsings.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/196
