Lockout discussion thread
View Single Post
09-19-2012, 03:06 AM
Where's the Doritos?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: All over Canada
Originally Posted by
Et le But
I'm a socialist myself, but a lot of this analysis goes out the window when discussing professional sports, since the way it is today is such a product of modern capitalism.
Professional athletes do deserve certain rights and that's why players unions are historically important - wages that will last beyond their relatively short careers, some job protection so they aren't disposed at will (even crap players are under contract), the right to proper supervision and protection against unneccesary health risks. But they aren't on the same "side" as the other workers, the ones who are really getting screwed here. The players want further deregulation, so they can put more in their contracts.
It just doesn't make sense within the current system for the players to get more than 50% of revenue.
Total revenue or the arbitrarily decided "hockey related revenue". I don't really side with either party but it's a bit harder to feel sorry for the owners when this is really the system they wanted. In a free market they basically had the option of running their businesses properly and paying the players essentially what ever % of revenue they could reasonably afford to pay them. Unfortunately for them they were unable to properly run their businesses and that's why we're in for our 2nd sustained work stoppage in a decade.
So to me it's not that the players deserve X percent of revenues, it's that the owners traded in the ability to dictate what % of revenues their employers get for cost certainty last time because they were too stupid to figure it out in a comparatively free market. Also, from what I understand the players were willing to take a 49 million dollar hard cap that didn't move, the owners were the ones who wanted it tied to revenue to cover themselves. Poor decisions.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by dynastyREredux