View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 03:15 AM
  #82
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
There are very few unions out there that give unions a "good name" in the sense you're thinking.

That aside, the biggie pro sports leagues (NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL) would be far more complicated if the players weren't collectively represented by a union. While the NHLPA gives the NHL a headache (to say the least), the NHL would probably be a disaster w/o union representation of the players. Entering into a CBA with unionized players gives the NHL teams the right to do things they couldn't do absent union representation of the players.

The real problem with the NHL is the fact they've got teams with wildly different worth and fortunes (re value, revenue, growth potential, etc.) and have decided they want those teams to have equal potential in the league. If left to their own devices they could never achieve parity on their own...because, for example, people in Toronto will spend their time blowing away cash on exorbitantly priced tickets to see a perennially losing team while people in Anaheim will barely watch and quickly abandon their (recently) Stanley Cup winning team.

The NHL can try to fake it in a short term sense through the lockout (and CBA they want)...but the same problem will pop in a few years from now. Toronto, Montreal, and NYR will continue to drive the revenue in the league while the teams in the "non-traditional" markets will fall behind. The linkage the NHL loves so much will result and the same problem they face now quickly popping up again - it will actually start to get worse, b/c MSG has been renovated and I'm sure the ticket prices will go through the roof.
There are plenty of other sports teams in the world where teams make huge sums of money more then other teams. Hell in professional soccer, there is no cap, there is no revenue sharing and teams like Man City, PSG, Chelsea etc with billionaire tycoon owners can spend $100 of millions more then others.

You think the Jaguars and the Seahawks, generate the same money as the Giants, Cowboys or Bears? Green Bay is the single smallest professionalism sports market in the country yet they get by.

The issue is the league isn't popular enough and generate enough revenue to pay the players these salaries. You can come on here and talk about the Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Rangers needing to share more but the amount they would have to share to fix the smaller teams would mean they don't generate enough profit for themselves.

It also has to do with why revenue sharing in other sports works better and is fairer. MLB, NBA and of course the NFL have huge national TV deals which is where most of the leagues profit comes from, here is an amazing stat, the NFL could close it's stadiums and play games on a field with no stands and generate not ticket sales, concessions or parking and still make a profit from the TV deal alone. MLB and NBA TV deals make up about 50% of the league revenue. Where as in the NHL only about 25% of the leagues revenue is from their TV deal. So in other sports leagues smaller market teams are making a larger % of the leagues pot, where as in the NHL your telling teams to give up their money, not the leagues money but their money to other teams, so the whole higher % of revenue sharing doesn't work as well. You can't just go out and get a better TV deal either if your league isn't popular, the NHL simply isn't popular enough. Drawing out this lockout won't help popularity and $ at all. Which is why I said, a year ago and will continue to say the NHLPA would have been so much smarter to take a slightly worse % deal early on and prevent a lockout and therefore loss in revenue then hold out, create a lockout that hurts HRR for a slightly higher %. 45% of 3.3 billion and growing fast is a hell of a lot more then 50% of 1.7 billion and hardly growing at all.

This is why player salaries have to come down, the league making the least amount of money by far can't be 3rd in payroll, it has to be last to match what the league makes. Giving players 57% of the leagues revenue is ridiculous and the players demanding X sum of money no matter the leagues revenue the next few years is stupid and beyond greedy. The players might not like the contractual restrictions, well then give up your ridiculous demands and maybe the owners will do the same but asking for a raise in your salary no matter the leagues profit is a joke.


As to your comment about leagues needing to be unionized, last year the NBA disbanded their union to negotiate their deal with the NBA. I think the NHL might be smart to do the same thing.


Last edited by Sir Psycho T: 11-17-2012 at 03:24 AM.
Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote