NHL
Posted by: Bradley McDonald
Commissioner Gary Bettman officially ended the NHL season yesterday, giving up hope that the owners and the player's association could come to terms and salvage the remainder of the season (only 28 games plus the playoffs). Although both sides relented some of their demands, a middle ground could not be reached.
It seems to me that both sides were too stubborn from the beginning. All of the bluffing and posturing with the demands killed any hope for a compromise. If the sides would've been open to compromise earlier, hockey games would probably be happening right now.
It all came down to a salary cap. The players were against a cap from the beginning, but in the last few days they relented and proposed a number. That number was still too high for the owners, even though the player's proposal included a payroll tax (which would tax teams who spend more) and a revenue sharing plan.
The economic philosophy of a salary cap is interesting. Those against it say that teams who make good decisions (through free agency and draft picks) are punished when the players they've invested in have reached their full potential and ask for more money. Their work developing that player or their decision to sign him is all for naught when, because of the cap, they can't pay him the money he has earned. From Jamie Fitpatrick:
But if you look at the NHL as a whole entity competing against other sports (NFL, MLB, NBA), and not as seperate teams competing against themselves, then the salary cap begins to make sense. The comissioner's job (one of them) is to make sure the league is financially secure, and one way to do this is through a salary cap. Bettman also thinks a cap will increase interest, thereby increasing profits.
All that being said, the NHL will not begin again without a salary cap in place. The players have already consented that much. I will admit that I'm not a huge hockey fan and I haven't followed the lockout very closely, but it seems like the final proposal from the players would've been financially viable for the league. Gary Bettman just seemed set in his mind that there wasn't going to be a season.
I'd like to hear from some hockey fans. Who's to blame here?
Commissioner Gary Bettman officially ended the NHL season yesterday, giving up hope that the owners and the player's association could come to terms and salvage the remainder of the season (only 28 games plus the playoffs). Although both sides relented some of their demands, a middle ground could not be reached.
It seems to me that both sides were too stubborn from the beginning. All of the bluffing and posturing with the demands killed any hope for a compromise. If the sides would've been open to compromise earlier, hockey games would probably be happening right now.
It all came down to a salary cap. The players were against a cap from the beginning, but in the last few days they relented and proposed a number. That number was still too high for the owners, even though the player's proposal included a payroll tax (which would tax teams who spend more) and a revenue sharing plan.
The economic philosophy of a salary cap is interesting. Those against it say that teams who make good decisions (through free agency and draft picks) are punished when the players they've invested in have reached their full potential and ask for more money. Their work developing that player or their decision to sign him is all for naught when, because of the cap, they can't pay him the money he has earned. From Jamie Fitpatrick:
This seems to contradict the basic principles of free enterprise. If a company puts out a bad product, then they won't be successful and the same should go for sports teams.A salary cap is a form of enforced mediocrity. It’s an artificial advantage for teams that do a lousy job of scouting, drafting, trading, developing and evaluating players. Such a team can rely on the salary restriction to take down the competent franchises and force them to start over.
Good teams are screwed by the cap, punished for compiling too many good players and getting the best out of them. As they become more successful, those players demand raises and the team has no choice but to release some of them so it can stay within the salary cap. That's the reward for doing what a team is supposed to do: excellence is undermined by a ludicrous financial scheme.
But if you look at the NHL as a whole entity competing against other sports (NFL, MLB, NBA), and not as seperate teams competing against themselves, then the salary cap begins to make sense. The comissioner's job (one of them) is to make sure the league is financially secure, and one way to do this is through a salary cap. Bettman also thinks a cap will increase interest, thereby increasing profits.
I want the fans in every market to think, at the beginning of the season, that their team has a chance. I don't want fans -- you pick the market -- to think, well, this team over there is spending three times as much, how can we compete with them?Basically, a salary cap levels the playing field. The NFL is structured this way and a lot of sports "purists" don't like it. I'll have to admit, I'm one of them. I think that a team that earn an advantage should be able to keep it. Tom Benjamin sums it up pretty well here:
The NFL is set up like a handicapped horse race, designed to produce a near random result and generate lots of betting action. The Bettman position that every hockey team should begin the year with the fans believing that their team has a legitimate chance to win is a terrifying idea. That is the National Football Lottery, not hockey. That's my real issue in this labour dispute. Artificial "fairness" isn't very fair at all.Of course, the New England Patriots have disproved that "near random" result argument, but you can see the salary cap affect on other teams. The Carolina Panthers didn't even make the playoffs this year and we're in the Super Bowl in 2004.
All that being said, the NHL will not begin again without a salary cap in place. The players have already consented that much. I will admit that I'm not a huge hockey fan and I haven't followed the lockout very closely, but it seems like the final proposal from the players would've been financially viable for the league. Gary Bettman just seemed set in his mind that there wasn't going to be a season.
I'd like to hear from some hockey fans. Who's to blame here?
