HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Thank you ESPN!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-16-2010, 10:41 AM
  #1
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Thank you ESPN!

Now normally we don't hear this in a hockey forum. Their coverage of hockey has been piss poor at best ever since the Whalers left for Carolina and frankly adding evidence to the fact that most sports reporters either are at the game homers or much like a lot of bloggers, coach potatoe GMs and critics. (Cynical note: it was the reporters and ESPN talking heads who were making the loudest noise about the NHL TV contract and 'Not being able to find Versus'.)

ESPN has improved their coverage lately, (even more cynical note, they know their two biggest contracts; NFL and NBA are going on strike in 2012 leaving the network with HUGE holes in their TV schedule which coincidentally would be plugged quite nicely by an NHL TV contract. So a little sucking up can't hurt right?) and because of this I have been more forgiving about prior transgressions. But to the point at hand, I recently bought a copy of ESPN the magazine and they had an article on gambling amongst teams. The article talked about how some of the star players on a roster would scalp their poorer teammates in games of cards and chance to further illustrate their point they provided a chart with the following information; the disparity between the top paid players and the lower paid players.

MLB: average of the top 25 players: $18,019,000 average of the 25 lowest paid players: $400,000

NBA: Top 25 average: $17,899,000, bottom 25 average: $551,848

NFL: top 25 average: $15,707,000, bottom 25 average: $310,000

NHL: top 25 average: $7,772,000, bottom 25 average: $486,400


To me looking at these stats, I see the two strongest unions, the MLB and NBA creating a HUGE salary gap between the richest players and the poorer players. And the two weaker unions; NFL and NHL with less of a disparity. Isn't it the job of the union to make sure EVERY union man get's their share? We hear the NHLPA trying their best to influence Donald Fehr into becoming the head of the union. They see the massive numbers that baseball players are getting and they want that. But they should be looking at the whole picture. YES, the top 25 are getting their cash but what about the bottom 25? What about those guys who actually are trying to make a living. NOTE: most of these salaries are from guys who will have a shorter career simply because they aren't as talented. The guys at the top will have 10+ years to make it big. The guys on the bottom will get what? 5-7 at most?

The topic shouldn't be more money, but more money parity. We keep talking about rich team, poor team, but what about rich player vs. poor player? Let's pretend that you are a 4th liner looking over your shoulder and seeing a BUNCH of top prospects from the recent strong drafts nipping at your heels. You have a family to feed, a house to pay for and potientially college for the kids. Now let's say the big salary guys on the team are standing in front of the group and saying, "Hey let's go on strike and get more money!" SURE the rich players can afford that, they are making the big bucks. But you look at the situation and you see that your richer teammates are asking for you to cut off a year of what could be what's left of a 3 year career so Sidney Crosby can make 8 figures, would YOU be supportive?

Before this, ESPN came out with a poll stating that 38% of NHL player supported contraction. I asked myself; who would be stupid enough to support lay offs? The question I should have been asking is "How much were the poll subjects being paid?" The only way an NHL player would support this is if they could afford to, or reasonably sure they had the skill not to be cut. If you polled the players making $750,000 or less if they would support this I'd be willing to bet there would be a different answer.

The problem with a work stoppage is that is royally screws the lower level players and they do not reap the benifits. The union, and agents to a degree are looking to maximize their rolls and the percentage they take. They don't honestly care who they hurt to make that 5% cut of the player's salary bigger. It's a short term hurt for a long term investment. It's a star driven union as much as the league is star driven. The owners are going to fight to save as much revenue as they can and if the unions push for more they will pass it on to the fans. The owner will not accept losing money. The upper salary players are going to push for more and force the owner's hand.

The problem becomes who will speak for the fans? The problem is who will speak for the lower paid players since the unions won't?

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 10:55 AM
  #2
PHLflyers10
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
I'm not sure how to respond, but it sounds like pure economics to me!

There are always going to be players that earn huge salaries and players that don't. You're always going to have skill players and you're always going to have less skilled players. Some people deserve more money for there services than others... supply and demand economics.

I would venture that *a large majority* of the less skilled players (ex: Riley Cote) are more than happy receiving the money they do for the minutes they play, the media attention and the lifestyle they are able to live. I doubt they want to be the ones to start a fuss about money and potentially lose their job. Many of them work very hard to keep their job and stay on a team - dedicated players (such as Betts) love the game and thinking of their personality I just can't see many complaining. Wishing they had more - yes, everyone does!

Also, when comparing salaries - are the figures inclusive of all player contracts (ex all 50 in the NHL, the large number in the NFL and the small number in the NBA)? Seems the NHL has the least gap and less concern.

EDIT: One more thing, as for the fans, if there is enough demand for a change (ex ticket price) the fans will make this obvious by not attending games. Unfortunately in most markets there will always be fans willing to pay the money to go to the games... so nothing will change. Any change will require a LARGE grassroots movement by season ticket holders and fans that attend a number of games per season.

Good discussion though!


Last edited by PHLflyers10: 04-16-2010 at 11:00 AM.
PHLflyers10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 10:59 AM
  #3
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLflyers10 View Post
I'm not sure how to respond, but it sounds like pure economics to me!

There are always going to be players that earn huge salaries and players that don't. You're always going to have skill players and you're always going to have less skilled players. Some people deserve more money for there services than others... supply and demand economics.

I would venture that *a large majority* of the less skilled players (ex: Riley Cote) are more than happy receiving the money they do for the minutes they play, the media attention and the lifestyle they are able to live. I doubt they want to be the ones to start a fuss about money and potentially lose their job.

Also, when comparing salaries - are the figures inclusive of all player contracts (ex all 50 in the NHL, the large number in the NFL and the small number in the NBA)? Seems the NHL has the least gap and less concern.

Good discussion though!
The figures provided were an average of the top 25 salaries and the bottom 25 salaries of each league. The numbers are rather dramatic when you look and see that top level athletes are making half of their counterparts BUT the lower end salaries are higher then all but the NBA salaries and this was using 2008-2009 numbers, what happens when the base NHL salary goes up to $500,000?

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 11:16 AM
  #4
PHLflyers10
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
, what happens when the base NHL salary goes up to $500,000?
At this point, does it really matter with having a salary cap? It would essentially means somebody else is then receiving less money.

$56.8 million for the 2009–10 season NHL
$128.0 million for the 2009-10 season NFL
$58.68 million for the 2009-10 season NBA
MLB ... we all know


NHL
$56.8m / 23 person roster = 2.469m average per player
$486,400 / 2.469m = 19.7%

So the lowest average salary player in the NHL receives 19.7% percent of his "equal share" or 0.00856% of the player payroll.


NBA
$58.68 / 15 person roster = 3.912m average per player
$551,848 / 3.912m = 14.1%

So the lowest average salary player in the NBA receives 14.1% of his "equal share" or 0.00940% of the player payroll.


So, it seems to be that the lower paid NHL players are receiving more of their "fair share" of roster money as compared to the NBA. Do I think those percentages are fair - no not really - but that is where market supply and demand comes into play and it's very hard to change how markets act!


EDIT: It would be cool to break down a few teams across different leagues on a boxplot to see the outliers and what quartile most salaries fall into. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boxplot_vs_PDF.png


Last edited by PHLflyers10: 04-16-2010 at 11:28 AM.
PHLflyers10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 11:35 AM
  #5
btn
Gone Hollywood
 
btn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ATL
Country: United States
Posts: 15,658
vCash: 500
A couple of notes:

1. The NFL figure is interesting, but since there is no such thing as a guaranteed contract, it is pretty meaningless.

2. The NFL is not a weak union, their problem is that due to the high number of players who spend 2-3 years in the league....it is dominated by younger players who are more interested in their own benefits not that of the veteran players.

btn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 11:43 AM
  #6
PHLflyers10
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by btn View Post
A couple of notes:2. The NFL is not a weak union, their problem is that due to the high number of players who spend 2-3 years in the league....it is dominated by younger players who are more interested in their own benefits not that of the veteran players.
Prime example is draft position (1 vs Top X) and how that can mean $millions difference in their first ROOKIE salary.

PHLflyers10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 12:05 PM
  #7
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post

The topic shouldn't be more money, but more money parity.
We keep talking about rich team, poor team, but what about rich player vs. poor player? Let's pretend that you are a 4th liner looking over your shoulder and seeing a BUNCH of top prospects from the recent strong drafts nipping at your heels. You have a family to feed, a house to pay for and potientially college for the kids. Now let's say the big salary guys on the team are standing in front of the group and saying, "Hey let's go on strike and get more money!" SURE the rich players can afford that, they are making the big bucks. But you look at the situation and you see that your richer teammates are asking for you to cut off a year of what could be what's left of a 3 year career so Sidney Crosby can make 8 figures, would YOU be supportive?

Why? Would fans pay more to see AO or Sid or that 4th liner? I'm sure you get paid based on your skill set, education, and experience. The entry level guy has to prove his worth just as you proved your worth. I have no problem with allowing a market system to exist as much as possible within the overarching constraints put in place by the CBA. A minimum salary already protects the lowest paid group; an individual cap makes sure that teams do spread it out somewhat. The cap takes care of the rest.

  Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 12:37 PM
  #8
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why? Would fans pay more to see AO or Sid or that 4th liner? I'm sure you get paid based on your skill set, education, and experience. The entry level guy has to prove his worth just as you proved your worth. I have no problem with allowing a market system to exist as much as possible within the overarching constraints put in place by the CBA. A minimum salary already protects the lowest paid group; an individual cap makes sure that teams do spread it out somewhat. The cap takes care of the rest.
The question I'm trying to pose is does raising the max salary really bring up the salaries of all players. You would think that is the goal of the union. If you look at the other leagues the answer seems to be no. What benefit does a 4th liner have to vote for a strike if there is no true incentive of a pay raise? They have MUCH MUCH more to lose than the star players who have a huge bankroll.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 12:46 PM
  #9
PHLflyers10
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 22
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
The question I'm trying to pose is does raising the max salary really bring up the salaries of all players. You would think that is the goal of the union. If you look at the other leagues the answer seems to be no. What benefit does a 4th liner have to vote for a strike if there is no true incentive of a pay raise? They have MUCH MUCH more to lose than the star players who have a huge bankroll.
Quote:
The question I'm trying to pose is does raising the max salary really bring up the salaries of all players.
I think we're looking at the wrong data in that case. Is there anywhere we can find data for salaries when league minimums were lower than current levels?

Quote:
You would think that is the goal of the union.
I don't think I would be able to agree. Remember that the first unions (generally speaking) were organized to obtain safe working conditions. Unions fight over much more than just financial aspects of a league - such as safety, the ability to use social networking sites, media requirements, etc.

PHLflyers10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 12:52 PM
  #10
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLflyers10 View Post
I think we're looking at the wrong data in that case. Is there anywhere we can find data for salaries when league minimums were lower than current levels?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHLflyers10 View Post
I don't think I would be able to agree. Remember that the first unions (generally speaking) were organized to obtain safe working conditions.
Unions fight over much more than just financial aspects of a league - such as safety, the ability to use social networking sites, media requirements, etc.
Absolutely, but sports unions are a different breed. They came after much of the major labor conflicts of industrial society. The idea of the sports union came when the players saw that there was a lot of revenue coming to the leagues and they felt they did not get their cut. Was it true. Yup. As for the data, I'm not sure about that. I would love to see the percentage of growth for the max salary compared to min salary.

I'm too busy researching for my own book....(Which will take about a year and half.)

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 01:37 PM
  #11
LadyStanley
Elasmobranchology-go
 
LadyStanley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North of the Tank
Country: United States
Posts: 53,639
vCash: 500
OK, unless they've got bad math, how can the minimum be under $500k for the NHL? (This season and last)

IMHO you should take 25 of the guys who play the *whole season* in the NHL, not guys who bounce between AHL and NHL, which is probably how they got the number to be under $500k.

LadyStanley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 03:12 PM
  #12
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
To me looking at these stats, I see the two strongest unions, the MLB and NBA creating a HUGE salary gap between the richest players and the poorer players. And the two weaker unions; NFL and NHL with less of a disparity.
I think you need to take a closer look. The NFL, with the weakest union, has the top dudes making 50x what the bottom dudes are making. The MLB, with the strongest union, has the bottom guys making nearly twice as much, on a relative basis. The NFL is absolutely ****** its low-end filler talent (not a judgement, maybe that's the right thing to do).

And let's not forget those bottom-paid dudes in the NFL do not even have guaranteed contracts - no matter how long your deal, you blow up a ligament, you're income-less after the current season unless you're a major cog in the team. And did the NHL data look at contracts-only, or did it also account for the amount of time the bottom paid dudes are in the minors earning the sorry end of a two-way contract?

Also not clear how Top/Bottom-X makes sense when there are radically different roster sizes (and therefore much different sized xxxPAs) for each sport.


Last edited by Dado: 04-16-2010 at 03:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2010, 06:16 PM
  #13
He Lied to Mario
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatCat999 View Post
Now normally we don't hear this in a hockey forum. Their coverage of hockey has been piss poor at best ever since the Whalers left for Carolina and frankly adding evidence to the fact that most sports reporters either are at the game homers or much like a lot of bloggers, coach potatoe GMs and critics. (Cynical note: it was the reporters and ESPN talking heads who were making the loudest noise about the NHL TV contract and 'Not being able to find Versus'.)

ESPN has improved their coverage lately, (even more cynical note, they know their two biggest contracts; NFL and NBA are going on strike in 2012 leaving the network with HUGE holes in their TV schedule which coincidentally would be plugged quite nicely by an NHL TV contract. So a little sucking up can't hurt right?) and because of this I have been more forgiving about prior transgressions. But to the point at hand, I recently bought a copy of ESPN the magazine and they had an article on gambling amongst teams. The article talked about how some of the star players on a roster would scalp their poorer teammates in games of cards and chance to further illustrate their point they provided a chart with the following information; the disparity between the top paid players and the lower paid players.

MLB: average of the top 25 players: $18,019,000 average of the 25 lowest paid players: $400,000

NBA: Top 25 average: $17,899,000, bottom 25 average: $551,848

NFL: top 25 average: $15,707,000, bottom 25 average: $310,000

NHL: top 25 average: $7,772,000, bottom 25 average: $486,400


To me looking at these stats, I see the two strongest unions, the MLB and NBA creating a HUGE salary gap between the richest players and the poorer players. And the two weaker unions; NFL and NHL with less of a disparity. Isn't it the job of the union to make sure EVERY union man get's their share? We hear the NHLPA trying their best to influence Donald Fehr into becoming the head of the union. They see the massive numbers that baseball players are getting and they want that. But they should be looking at the whole picture. YES, the top 25 are getting their cash but what about the bottom 25? What about those guys who actually are trying to make a living. NOTE: most of these salaries are from guys who will have a shorter career simply because they aren't as talented. The guys at the top will have 10+ years to make it big. The guys on the bottom will get what? 5-7 at most?

The topic shouldn't be more money, but more money parity. We keep talking about rich team, poor team, but what about rich player vs. poor player? Let's pretend that you are a 4th liner looking over your shoulder and seeing a BUNCH of top prospects from the recent strong drafts nipping at your heels. You have a family to feed, a house to pay for and potientially college for the kids. Now let's say the big salary guys on the team are standing in front of the group and saying, "Hey let's go on strike and get more money!" SURE the rich players can afford that, they are making the big bucks. But you look at the situation and you see that your richer teammates are asking for you to cut off a year of what could be what's left of a 3 year career so Sidney Crosby can make 8 figures, would YOU be supportive?

Before this, ESPN came out with a poll stating that 38% of NHL player supported contraction. I asked myself; who would be stupid enough to support lay offs? The question I should have been asking is "How much were the poll subjects being paid?" The only way an NHL player would support this is if they could afford to, or reasonably sure they had the skill not to be cut. If you polled the players making $750,000 or less if they would support this I'd be willing to bet there would be a different answer.

The problem with a work stoppage is that is royally screws the lower level players and they do not reap the benifits. The union, and agents to a degree are looking to maximize their rolls and the percentage they take. They don't honestly care who they hurt to make that 5% cut of the player's salary bigger. It's a short term hurt for a long term investment. It's a star driven union as much as the league is star driven. The owners are going to fight to save as much revenue as they can and if the unions push for more they will pass it on to the fans. The owner will not accept losing money. The upper salary players are going to push for more and force the owner's hand.

The problem becomes who will speak for the fans? The problem is who will speak for the lower paid players since the unions won't?
Are we supposed to say union yes, so Alex Ovechkin gets paid the same after 4 years in the NHL as Drew Stafford because he has the same amount of seniority. Say yes to union mediocrity.

He Lied to Mario is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.