View Single Post
09-11-2004, 05:18 PM
X0ssbar's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tom_Benjamin
A luxury tax is entirely different than a salary cap. Hockey players - and baseball players - are willing to take a luxury tax. A luxury tax does not define a specific player share of revenue. That is the key issue in this dispute.

Football has a terrible CBA for the players because they are easily replaced. Basketball players also have a poor agreement for them because except for a handful of superstars they are all easily replaced.

Baseball and players get a better deal because they can't be replaced.

Why did you think there was a difference? Obviously baseball and hockey players have more leverage. They are worth more.

I agree with you that the luxury tax system does not define a specific player's share of revenue - but is does restric it.

My point being is that out of the 4 major's, the NHL is the least successfull yet has the least restrictive CBA. I clearly see a problem with this. If anything the NHL should have the tightest CBA because they ARE less successfull.

I personally don't feel that any athlete at the professional level is easily replaced.

X0ssbar is offline