Lockout discussion thread 2.0
View Single Post
11-22-2012, 08:31 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
Et le But
This I agree with, and I have very little sympathy for the owners worried about losing money in what is a vanity project for many of them. The NHL has itself to blame for the inflation of players contracts and the administrators need to share some of the losses.
We live in an economy where "job creators" and their capital have significant leverage over workers who only control their own labour. In this sense the players are nothing more than workers.
But even if the pro-owner mindset is a symptom of this, this is not the battle that means anything when you look at the big picture. The players worth is already inflated to absurd amounts, and much of the value guaranteed to them by the CBA benefits only a few of the players - fringe payers stand to lose more from the lockout than renegotiation.
Furthermore, the issue in Wisconsin and the US in general is a war against public unions, where the goal is to not only build resentment against teachers and public workers who negotiated for certain benefits, but to also gut public funding and eventually privatize services like education. There's also no threat of outsourcing that killed many of the private unions in America.
Just look at this threat of decertification. Imagine a "real" union using that as a threat.
This is a good post, thank you for raising the level of discussion.
With respect to sympathy for the owners, I would be on the side of the owners if they proposed a legitimate business plan that included more revenue sharing, some sort of cost controls over non-player expenses, etc, something with long-term viability. As it is, I do not support the Bettman plan as it is a flawed business strategy that doesn't address any of the league's economic problems, it will simply lead to another lockout in 5 or 6 years. At the end of the day that is the Bettman business strategy -- reduce the players to zero over time by perpetual and periodic lockouts. They got 72% from the free-market system in 2004, 57% last year, 50% after this lockout, maybe 40% after the 2018 lockout. Bettman sees the players as enemies to be beaten rather than as partners to build the business with, he would have been right at home as an executive at General Motors or at Hostess. Given that the owners have this attitude, I understand the players trying to take what they can.
I freely admit that this is partly due to my bias as a fan: I am sick of the Bettman lockout cycle.
That's what these things are about for me. The good of the game, etc. I wouldn't be on the side of the players if they were demanding an increase to 65% or something like that. However, I have been disgusted by the attitude I see here, among some posters, that the players should be grateful just to be able to bang a lot of hot chicks, that the players are responsible for the lockout, that workers should not get 50% of post-cost revenue in a highly talented field, and that the owners are the ones taking 100% of the risks and that all 30 owners should be entitled to a large annual profit.
I would not be surprised if people like Jeremy Jacobs see the NHLPA as an insult to nature, and if they would be willing losing to lose tens of millions of dollars just to beat up a union, any union. However, in general it does seem correct that the class of people Jacobs belongs to has more to gain by humiliating teachers than by milking pro athletes.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-22-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion