Greed, Stupidity and A Whole Lot of Nothing

The title of this post in no way is meant, coincidentally or otherwise, to describe Congress.

In fact, it describes the current labor situation afflicting the NHL and its (lack of) ability to proceed with a viable, financially sound product from which all parties can benefit. All relevant parties, that is, being the owners of hockey teams, players under contract with said teams, and fans of said teams and hockey in general.

America, being a country of vast, unlimited opportunity (just ask an athlete in the NFL, the NBA or Major League Baseball), seemingly hasn't shared the wealth with its brethren who skate and bash the shit out of each other for a living (again, not a description, coincidentally or otherwise, of Congress). Hockey is the "Oliver" of The Brady Bunch: it has never quite fit into the placid, calm landscape of American sports, between the reputation as a bloodsport, the rules (what's icing again?) and the overall demeanor of pride, sportsmanship and integrity that the game has enjoyed through the years is all but lost on a public that would, clearly, prefer to watch a January college basketball game than an NHL playoff game. In my existence, I've had to explain the presence of fighting within the game of hockey not as a brutish ritual but as a way for players on each team to protect their "stars" -- because the sport is violent, the high-speed, high-profile, "skilled" players often attract lots of attention from the largest, nastiest members of the opponent's team, so the presence of fighting allows a team to let its opponent know, by sending out onto the ice its "tough guy" or "goon," that if you mess with our guys, we'll mess with yours. For the most part, and for the better part of 75 years, it's worked rather well. I'm sure Donald Brashear (who got clocked in the head with a stick by Marty McSorley) and Steve Moore, who was clocked in the head by Todd Bertuzzi (all of him, not just his stick) would disagree, but for the most part, fighting is actually a way for players to keep each other in line, not cross it. Fighting in the game of hockey is akin to power as its own deterrent, much like the Cold War-era nuclear weapons in US and Soviet arsenals. While the Cold War combatants never used theirs, NHL teams utilize their goons in order to keep the peace. Most of the time it works, and despite its simplistic, violent nature, it works remarkably well.

Back to the dollars: the NHL, realizing its audience cannot expand in a market which is unwilling to allow its expansion (folks in Idaho aren't clamoring for the Boise Spuds hockey club, I can assure you), is stuck with the status quo: a limited, fairly consistent audience which isn't doling dollars as are their basketball, baseball and football fan brethren. The advertising and television revenue that these other sports garner are simply not there for hockey, and, therefore, neither can there be the same excessive, $12 million annual salaries either. The problem herein lies in the fact that some clubs can afford to pay players whatever they ask, and many other clubs cannot. That inequality is shifting the balance and the fairness of the game noticeably; as I've indicated in prior discussions regarding this situation, players are human beings, and human beings age, so players know that they need to play for as much money as they can achieve, which means that whoever pays them the most to play will be able to retain their services, even if the payor is a lousy team that rarely, if ever, wins anything. Like games.

The problems that are inherent in the NHL model are broad but are solveable. Most assuredly, what the League itself wants to do is implement a salary cap to insure all salaries are kept to an amount which keeps spending within the confines of fairness and reality, ie limit the dollars each team can spend so the "little" guys can afford to sign players, be competitive and not lose money by having to outspend a "big" guy to retain or attract a high-level player. As for competition, it seems to be working well as exemplified by other sports: the NFL has a salary cap which insures, especially based on its success, that from year to year, any team has a chance to achieve success. That is partially why there is so much fluctuation from year to year. Players jump around and many teams are beneficiaries of this freedom of movement. To wit: the Pittsburgh Steelers, out of nowhere, are one win (albeit a huge, upset win) from the Super Bowl. They were nowhere near the experts' pick as a possible member of the NFL elite this season. Between injuries and coaching and other variables, from week to week and season to season, each game is a toss-up until the final gun, and that kind of legitimate, pure competition keeps people watching, interested and enjoying the sport.

Hockey players are seeing the short-term in the salary cap model and are therefore, understandably, against it. Instead of seeing the implementation of a cap as a way to expand, build and grow the interest in their sport and the League itself, they see it as a way for them to lose money and to lose revenue. Resistance to the "cap" concept is universal in all sports because it plainly states that each team is limited in the amount it can play its players. However, by evening out the playing field, it virtually guarantees the League as a whole benefits, no matter the sport. More competition -- fair, balanced, legitimate competition -- legitimizes the sport and makes more people pay attention, which in turn produces more revenue from advertising, television ratings/revenue, participation and ticket sales. Which helps everyone. Because, as this is occurring, the salary cap amount is driven up as each team's profit grows. Obviously, whether or not there is a cap, there will be winners and losers, and there is no direct correlation between salary and winning: the Tampa Bay Lightning won last season's Stanley Cup, and they weren't at the top of the higher-paid teams. In fact, on the contrary: they were among the teams with lower payrolls. Conversely, the team with the highest payroll, the New York Rangers, were virtually eliminated from the playoffs (of which nearly half the league's team are eligible) two months before the season was completed. Similarly, the 2002 World Series pitted the New York Yankees (the highest payroll in major league baseball) against the Florida Marlins (one of the lowest payrolls in baseball). And the Yankees didn't win.

The NHL Board of Directors meeting that was originally scheduled for January 14th, during which the season was rumored to be cancelled, was not held because, according to "sources," there was nothing to discuss. The problem is that there is nothing that can be discussed when one side sees only the long-term and the other only sees the short. The head of the NHLPA (the players' union), Bob Goodenow, advised the players to seek employment in Europe for the remainder of this season and perhaps the next season as well. In other words, he believes that not only will there not be a 2004-05 hockey season but there could conceivably be no 2005-06 hockey season either. ESPN published an article relevant to this discussion at http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=1967807.

Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to disagree with him that there will likely be no hockey this or next season: and while I lament the loss of hockey in the short- and long-term, I can understand why the games aren't being played. I also wonder how long a lockout implemented by team owners and accepted without concession by players can continue: if players are (clearly) so concerned about short-term salaries (ie their own), how much longer can and will they accept a tenth of their salaries from European hockey teams that typically employ minor-league talent (aka NHL cast-offs)? And how much damage can the NHL withstand before people accept its lack of legitimacy? In other words, will there be similar backlash in the fan returning to hockey as there was after the last baseball stoppage ended? I think there will be significantly less backlash from fans than there was in baseball, because many believe the owners are wrong (since it is them, in theory, that is causing the lockout and not the players). The casual fan will not blame the players, and the players are the reason people watch hockey in the first place. It sure isn't the owners.

Above, in my suggestion that the players have not made any significant concessions, let me clarify: the major "concession" the players offered (in their opinion, a concession) is something they describe as a salary rollback: they proposed a 24-percent across-the-board cut in all salaries (with higher-paid players taking a bigger hit than the lesser-paid sacrificing less). This is all well and good, but of course this is just making the problem less worrisome right now: in three years, half of the current NHL players will be signing new contracts that need not adhere to any rollback or "limited" numbers, which means in the next three years, for the most part, the "rollback" will be a worthless, forgotten gesture with no progress made and no solution achieved, much less sought.

The modern NHL player doesn't quite understand the long-term ramifications of the current financial picture facing NHL owners and the League itself. And as long as said players focus only on their own salaries and not the health of the League, they will be pondering the problem from Europe or the unemployment line. And to jeopardize your own livelihood in the short-term to insure the evaporation of that livelihood in the long-term is, in a word, stupid. There are too many teams in hockey -- 30 -- and the game's lack of ubiquity means that some of those teams might fold; which means that the players who are currently playing (or being locked out from playing) for those teams will either go to other teams or will be out of the NHL entirely. Assuming two teams fold, that means the players on the rosters of the folded teams will then either be out of jobs or take jobs away from others on other teams. Which means fewer players will be paid by fewer teams, and the revenue all around is shrinking. There will be more dollars for fewer players in the short term, but there will be fewer dollars for the League, which means that revenue (ie profitability) will have shrunk. The whole idea is to expand the League, profitability and interest therein, not contract it: but if the League continues on its current path, the next step is to fold two or more teams, leaving more players out of the equation, fewer teams, and fewer fans. I don't understand how this can improve the financial well-being of the League, the game of hockey, or the players as a whole. In fact, unless I'm missing something, it clearly cannot.

I'm just not sure why it's not clear, and why this hasn't been explained properly, to the players.

The one thing I do know is that the longer this continues, and the more people continue to go on about their business without watching or thinking about hockey, the worse it will be for the game once (if) it comes back. And if it is worse for the game, then it is worse for the players, worse for the fans, and worse for the people who commit large sums of money to it. Or there can be some financial structure implemented to insure all teams have the opportunity to be equally profitable, to foster competition, and to broaden the interest in the game.

Or the current player rosters of all 30 teams can just hold out, hope that more money will somehow flow into a closed, unprofitable business model, and stand by while their sport is replaced by figure skating, tennis and volleyball.

I think I've made my position relatively clear. If you need to find me, I'll be watching Katerina Witt, Maria Sharapova and Holly McPeak from the comfort of my living room with the PIP, the remote and the popcorn. It might not be more exciting, but it sure will keep my mind from lamenting the lack of hockey.

Pass the popcorn.