I don't feel like comparing everyone, so I'll just take a quick look at baseball. In 1990, the average MLB team had
$51.9 million in revenue. In a 26 team league, that comes to $1.35 billion. MLB reached
$9 billion in revenues in 2014. That is about a 6.7x increase over that period.
The NHL had revenues of
$400 million in 1990-91. For 2013-14, it reached
$3.7 billion. That is a 9.25x increase.
Of course, not all of that can be attributed to Bettman. I used 1990 specifically because that was when the NHL's board of governors hatched the plan to expand to at least 28 teams by the year 2000, and five of the nine teams the league ultimately added pre-dated Bettman. Starting from 1990 also allowed me a fairly easy apples to apples timeframe between the two sports.
As far as new stadia goes, come the 2017-18 season, Calgary and the Rangers will be the only teams in a pre-1990 arena. (And MSG was massively renovated just a couple years ago). Seven of MLB's teams are playing in stadiums that pre-date the 1990s. Though there are caveats... Fenway, Wrigley and Chavez Ravine are classics that teams are unlikely to leave soon. Anaheim was massively renovated as well, and the writing is on the wall for Oakland.
As part of the feasibility of the model goes, it depends on whether the TV bubble slowly shrinks or if it bursts suddenly. In MLB, teams would just start losing money as cable channels offer less for rights, or losing gobs of money if the channels simply all went bankrupt at once. For the NHL, the linked salary cap would position the league well in the event of a slow TV decline. But a catastrophic loss of revenues would actually result in the NHL equivalent of a constitutional crisis. If cable TV revenues suddenly vanished, the NHL would be in a spot where every team would be over the salary cap. That... would make for some interesting negotiations between the union and ownership.