As if the last one wasn't fun enough, NHL Lockout 2.0 is upon us. I was optimistic that the owners would come to their senses and realize that, unlike 2004-05, they actually won't be better off not playing this time, but evidently common sense doesn't run rampant among NHL owners. How else do you explain the fact that one of the things they don't like the most about the recently-expired CBA is the ridiculous front-loaded contracts that they've been more than willing to hand out repeatedly over the past couple seasons? (If you don't want those crazy deals, here's a plan, don't offer them!)
Even though this lockout seemed as inevitable as the last one, I doubt the NHL will lose an entire season again (at least I'm holding out hope it doesn't). As a league, it has too much to lose. Hockey's always been a niche sport as it is. Even in the big cities that relatively care, the hockey teams don't get any press. I'm pretty sure the newspapers/TV stations will find something else to cover. But more importantly, do they really expect the fans to continually come back if they keep doing this year after year? How long did it take the fans to come back after the 2004-05 season was cancelled? Some still haven't. The longer this lockout drags on, the more fans the NHL will lose. (Not to mention the lost revenue for the small-market teams once/if they start cancelling games.)
Eight years ago, I was on the owners' side. The system was broken and needed fixing. If it took the loss of a season to achieve that goal, so be it. Unfortunately, that's what happened, but the owners definitely came out ahead in the last CBA. They got their salary cap. They got their competitive parity (there have been seven different Stanley Cup winners in the seven seasons since the last lockout). They got rules changes that made for a better product.
This time, I've gotta say I'm siding with the players. All of the owners' issues are of their own making. It's not the union's fault the stars were being offered those ridiculous contracts. What are they going to do? Not sign them? To their credit, the players have no issue with the salary cap, which you figure would probably be their biggest gripe. Yet they're fine with it. And in their defense, the 2004-05 lockout ended when the players made some big concessions. They rightfully feel that it shouldn't be all-give, no-take again.
Let's also keep in mind that the players have Donald Fehr on their side. Fehr's the guy who led baseball's players union during the 1994-95 strike. A strike that ended when the owners relented on their demand for a salary cap, which Major League Baseball still doesn't have 20 years later. (It should also be noted that baseball hasn't had a work stoppage since the strike, while each of the other three has had a lockout in the past 18 months.) It seems highly unlikely Fehr will back down, and if he wasn't intimidated by the MLB owners, there's no doubt that the NHL owners don't scare him, either.
It also seems like the owners aren't unanimous in their desire to drascially change the current system. Do you really think the owners of the LA Kings don't want to get to the business of defending their Stanley Cup title as soon as possible? People in Winnipeg just got a team back. Would it be wise to keep those fans away? The NHL is in a period of record growth and, by extension, record revenue. But a handful of influential big-market owners want more of that money than they're already getting. They aren't going to budge, strongarmed everybody else, and got Gary Bettman to impose yet another lockout (the league's third in his tenure as commissioner).
While we're probably going to lose at least a portion of the season, there's reason for optimism. Unlike eight years ago, there's no philosophical difference (the salary cap) causing a huge rift between the sides. Rather, they can't figure out how to share $3.3 billion. Under the previous deal, the players received 57 percent of hockey-related revenues (which does seem high). The owners wanted to reverse that (they get 57, the players get 43), and the union rightfully lauged in their faces. The latest proposal is a more modest 47-49 percent. (Has 50-50 ever occurred to these people?) The players would probably be willing to do that, but not with the dramatic immediate rollback the owners want. (Although, it doesn't help that the sides can't agree on what "hockey-related revenues" actually are.)
Gary Bettman said that the owners' latest proposal would be taken off the table once the lockout started since the NHL would have to "reassess what it could then offer." But as the players pointed out, the lockout wasn't a "necessity." It was a choice. They were more than willing to keep playing under the previous deal while the two sides worked on a new one. The owners were having none of it, though. They figure that since they've got more money, they can afford to hold out longer than the players can. (For some reason, the owners still get the money from the NBC contract this season whether they play or not, which doesn't seem right at all.)
I'm confident we won't lose an entire NHL season for the second time in a decade. There seems to be more common ground from which to negotiate, and, unlike last time, the sides are at least talking. The players will have to give a little, which they're willing to do if it means getting back on the ice. But the owners, whether they like it or not, will have to give a little too. Sooner or later, they're going to realize that. Hopefully it's before too much damage is done.
No comments:
Post a Comment