Does the NHL commissioner need to be free from owners' control?
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 09:29 AM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
In best interest of the "game" would be that Owners get 60% of the revenue and put 20% of it in revenue sharing, and Players get screwed.
That is not best interest of the players.
Which is why i think its ridiculous anyone ever says "Best interest of the game".
A strong leader would recognize the following statement to be true: a league cannot exist without the financial backing of the owners, and the owners would have nothing to back without the best players on the ice.
Complementary relationships exist all over the place, whether in business/employee relationships or in industry/industry relationships. The oil and refining industry would be nothing without an automotive industry, and the automotive industry would be nothing without an oil and refining industry. This exists in pro sports as well.
With this in mind, the two goals of a dictatorial commissioner in the NHL would be:
- Franchise stability, most likely through an ambitious revenue-sharing plan (which would make the owners a bit unhappy)
- Ensuring competitive balance, which would most likely come through restrictions on player movement and salary (which would make the players a bit unhappy)
But this is nothing new. This is what the NFL did starting in the 1920s and 1930s, which is why the popularity and revenues grow year after year while everyone else has suffered through lean periods (due to the other leagues' failure to do so). The NBA will eventually be undone by the internal tampering that the Miami Heat made popular a couple years back, and an otherwise good commissioner with a gaping blind spot (David Stern) is directly responsible.
View Public Profile
Mayor Bee's albums
Find More Posts by Mayor Bee