Lockout/CBA Discussion Thread

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by mgoblue

Yeah, I understand...just gets frustrating after a while. At least this one is a longer agreement... I'll deal with it and just laugh at the stupid owners who find ways around rules that are supposed to protect them.

As long as there are stubborn jack*ss owners like Jacobs around, there will always be work stoppages.

From all accounts, it was the big money teams like Boston and Calgary that drove this lockout. Those teams were making buttloads of money and were angry they only got 43% of it. Next lockout they'll try to get another 5% from the players.

[skydog71]

Ironically, teams like Phoenix earn the other owners more money than teams like Toronto. I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me...

If the league removed the Leafs, league revenues would drop by $200 million. Since the salary cap is tied to league revenues, it would drop by $200 million * 50% / 29 teams = $3.44 million/team. So each team could pay their players $3.44 million less, and since there is very little revenue sharing, most of this money would just go directly into the owners' pockets.

On the flipside, if the league removed a team with revenues of $29 million below the league average, each team would see their salary cap go up by $29 million * 50% / 29 = $500,000/team. So if you contract a poor revenue generator, all of the other owners end up having to pay their own players more.

Leagues like the NFL with significant amounts of revenue sharing don't have these issues of course. But I think this is one of the reasons that the richer NHL clubs are so content to have money losing franchises in non-traditional markets. It drives down the salary cap, enabling big market teams like the Leafs and Rangers to churn out ridiculous profits.

[mkharsh33]

You want better teams (in any professional sport)? Have fewer of them... As competition increases, so does fan interest... I could live with 26 NHL teams.

[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by mkharsh33

You want better teams (in any professional sport)? Have fewer of them... As competition increases, so does fan interest... I could live with 26 NHL teams.

I know what you are saying, but the NFL seems to do fine with 32 teams. I don't think the NHL needs fewer teams per se, but rather systemic changes in the way the game's finances operate. One would think that with 2 work stoppages in a decade, the serious issues could be straightened out for the long-term health of the game. I guess one would be wrong...

[ImTellinTim]

The NFL is also a money factory where 20 of its 32 teams are worth a billion and their TV deal is worth about threlveteen gagillion dollars. They seem to have struck a perfect balance of parity where everyone can be successful at any time as long as you hire a competent front office. The product on the field is also exciting to casuals.

The NHL stretched itself too thin with expansion and until they admit they were wrong about it, this is what we're stuck with.

[slickdtc]

Quote: Originally Posted by ImTellinTim

The NFL is also a money factory where 20 of its 32 teams are worth a billion and their TV deal is worth about threlveteen gagillion dollars. They seem to have struck a perfect balance of parity where everyone can be successful at any time as long as you hire a competent front office. The product on the field is also exciting to casuals. The NHL stretched itself too thin with expansion and until they admit they were wrong about it, this is what we're stuck with.

I actually went about reading that number like it was a real word...

[phenom1990]

Quote: Originally Posted by ImTellinTim

The NFL is also a money factory where 20 of its 32 teams are worth a billion and their TV deal is worth about threlveteen gagillion dollars. They seem to have struck a perfect balance of parity where everyone can be successful at any time as long as you hire a competent front office. The product on the field is also exciting to casuals. The NHL stretched itself too thin with expansion and until they admit they were wrong about it, this is what we're stuck with.

To add on to that most of the NFL media contract money comes from their national TV contract. The only thing an individual team controls is the preseason games and the games on the radio. So the market size is less significant. In the other sports, the local media contract is a much much significant piece of the pie.

Second, football is seen as much more conducive to gambling than any of the other sports. So as much as people say they love the sport, they also like gambling which gives people a reason to watch the game.

[pietasterp]

Reasonable points phenom and ImTellinTim.

I offer a few counterpoints:

The NFL is what it is in large part because owners decided 30+ years ago that revenue sharing was the best path to prosperity for the league as a whole. It is true that the national TV contracts have helped that revenue sharing significantly, but mostly in terms of letting the wealthiest teams keep more of their revenue (while the huge cash piles they get from the national TV contracts have helped cushion the bottom lines of the "poorer" teams without taking as much from the top teams).

Market matters in the NFL; that's why some teams are worth much more than others, and they are mostly the big-market teams. They just have a huge national contract that limits what the rich teams have to share with the poorer teams, but this is a relatively recent phenomenon (and a big reason for the lockout last year). A certain number of teams have always been subsidized to a greater or lesser extent by the wealthiest few teams in the league, the only difference is that now that subsidy comes from the TV contracts as opposed to out of the pockets of the Maras and Krafts.

The parity in the NFL is a direct result of that revenue sharing model.

I believe the MLB is essentially a local TV contract-driven revenue model, and they seem to do reasonably well.

The NHL needs more significant revenue sharing in my opinion; it addresses a lot of problems including parity and financial disparities between teams. It will be like the early years of the NFL revenue sharing for a while, but eventually, over the course of time, they can reduce the amount the richer teams have to subsidize the poorer teams. The wealthiest teams have to lead the way on this, though - that's how the NFL got to where it is today.

I don't buy the argument that the NFL is popular because lends itself well to gambling...that certainly helps, but the bottom line is people gamble on it because they enjoy the sport, not necessarily the other way around. I mean, there is no more gambling-friendly spectacle in the world than horse-racing, and that sport is dying (if not dead) in this country.

All of the above is conjecture on my part; I know it is difficult to compare sports leagues as they are so unique and have different challenges. But I am one of the few defenders of NHL expansion, in theory if not in actual execution. I'm a believer in expanding the markets, it just has to be done correctly and with conviction.