View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 01:15 PM
  #99
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Theokritos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,733
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
On the other hand, North American sports franchises in a league are in an industry where athletic competitions against other franchises is their product. Each franchise must have reasonably competitive opponents for the product to sell in the marketplace. The franchises that make up the league all have an interest in the collective strength of the league.
True, but the franchises are also competitors...for players. With the Entry Draft the league eliminates this competition among its member clubs with the effect that entry-level players cannot choose which NHL franchise they want to sign with. Obviously that's acceptable under NA laws. In the European Union it would be illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i know i said i'd stop talking about this, but i think i've figured out where the logical fault line in your argument lies.

a hockey player does not have an inalienable right to play hockey at the highest level.
Logical fault line...or rather different logics? In the European Union this right you are referring to pretty much exists. More precicely, leagues and clubs in general are not allowed to establish a regime that interfers with the free movement of work(ers). My mistake was that I took this right for granted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
the question is about entitlement. and that's why i take issue with talking about "freedom" here.
Good for you that you don't live in the EU then.

Speaking of entitlement: Even if I adopt the NA point of view, what was it exactly that Lindros did wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
...he can go play in the AHL, or the ECHL. or he can probably make similar millions playing in omsk... there are alternatives. just because those alternatives are not as desirable as the big league, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Right. So the NHL tells Lindros: "We want you, but you can only play for Quebec." Lindros says: "I'm not going to play for Quebec, no way." NHL: "Well, then you are not going to play in the NHL." Lindros: "Well, then I'm not going to play in the NHL." The NHL informs Lindros about the terms, Lindros doesn't like it and turns the NHL down. So everything is fine by your logic, right? But then the NHL changes its position: "We would rather have Lindros play for another NHL team than to not have him in the NHL at all. Give him what he wants." Lindros didn't force them with a gun or something. So why blame him now? The NHL thought the alternative - not having Lindros - was not desirable (just like Lindros thought it was not desirable to play for Quebec) and they were ready to make him a better offer to get him. Their choice.

People believe that world-class talents like Lindros are somehow obliged to play in the NHL. The real issue is that Lindros turned the NHL down in the first place because he didn't like the conditions - that's what he was not entitled to do, at least in the minds of many hockey fans. If the NHL calls you follow, like a humble Catholic follows the call of the Holy Roman Church.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote