View Single Post
08-23-2012, 03:32 PM
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,436
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by urn View Post
That's a good point, but just to play devil's advocate, is it really fair to expect players to "perform" in a zero-sum game? They work their butts off and play a very physically demanding and dangerous game against other professional hockey players working just as hard. They ought to get paid for that, regardless of the outcome, cause somebody's gotta lose. The owners know (or should know) the inherent risk in owning a professional sports franchise.
I never said it should be a zero sum game. My only point was that some are portraying the owners as just greedy and the players as victims in all this. They are currently getting significantly more than 50% of the revenue and are guaranteed the money even if they don't perform.

Even if you feel they work their butts off and should get paid for it, don't you think the revenue pie is tilted a little too much in the players favor right now?

I bet hockey would be more fun to watch if the players got their way.
I disagree. If left to themselves, the players would want less time to be a UFA, no salary cap, and couldn't care less about revenue sharing. We'd go back to having the teams with the money being able to spend whatever they wanted on every star player. Baseball is a sport where the players pretty much got their way and it is no more fun to watch than it was before that. In fact, I'd argue it's worse.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote