I've been thinking a bit about hockey, particularly the NHL. What a bunch of lunkheads. I don't really understand the rationale here. I mean, the league just canceled an entire season seven years ago, and yet feels the need to toy with the consumers and threaten another league cancellation. There are many problems with this type of thinking. While the last lockout was over the inequity in salaries and compensation (among other things, but those were the main problems), this lockout seems to be over nothing. There is not the same type of urgency as there was last time. Sure the owners and players will both tell us that there is something fundamentally wrong with the NHL's salary structure, but I think that's just a cover-up for the league's main problems, problems that were swept under the rug during negotiations seven years ago in favor of a short-term stopgap. Instead of worrying about the financial situation, there are two other things of utmost importance that I believe the NHL needs to address before it can return to the competition.
The first thing the NHL needs to realize is that it is not the only professional hockey league. There are hockey leagues up and down Canada and Europe that pay their players very good money and treat them well to boot. Of course the NHL typically hands out the largest contracts, but many hockey players play because they love the game. A lockout, it seems to me, doesn't make the players hate the owners. Rather, I believe it forces the players to resent the union for refusing to cut a deal. A fair number of players have defected to other leagues overseas to satiate their hunger for hockey. They don't seem to be worried about the salary structure. They merely want to play hockey. I may be way off on this one, and all of the players are actually super greedy, but I doubt it. Still, it's one opinion in a field of many.
The NHL needs to recognize that it is not the only choice. This is a capitalist society and the NHL is a business just like any other. If people choose not to work for the NHL, it will dissolve. There are other options out there for players. For the NHL to sit there and think that all of its players (not to mention its fans) will return is a fool's errand.
The other problem that I see in the NHL is the over-expansion that took place in the 1990's. There were a bunch of teams added in some of the country's least likely hotspots. Miami, Phoenix, Nashville, Atlanta, Carolina, and Tampa Bay all got teams in a span of ten years. These locations are hardly hockey hotbeds, as evidenced by the fact that the stadiums rarely sell out save for playoff runs and discount ticket days. The brand has become diluted. Markets are having trouble supporting teams, thereby limiting the budget available to signing good players, discouraging and alienating fans even more. But during the last round of negotiations, the Commissioner and owners vehemently rejected any proposal having to do with contraction, even though it would seem to be in the best interest of the sport. Imagine a league of 16-20 teams, each with top-flight stars in viable hockey markets that can support them. More teams could be put in Canada - there's no team in Hamilton? Quebec City? C'mon! I believe that through contraction, the talent disparity would be lessened and all teams would be put on a more even playing field. Also, with less teams there would be less revenue sharing, increasing profits for the teams that can already make money. What owner would not be happy with this? Of course, I'm not an economics expert, but I feel like this would totally work.
Ok, now I know that I'm not the best person to be listening to in this type of situation, so please take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. But I still think that the NHL has other problems on its plate that need to be addressed. If they focus on only one issue (finances), the league will end up in the exact same place it is now. It's a cycle.
The definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
No comments:
Post a Comment