[sureLoss]

An agent went on Buffalo radio and explained how insurance would work for unsigned players at the World Cup:

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/nichol...nce-questions/

“Well, there’s certainly risks for the teams on any player, signed or unsigned,” agent Steve Bartlett noted on Buffalo’s WGR 550 Tuesday morning. “No matter what the contract status, you don’t want to lose an asset. I guess that’s the risk that goes along with the game.

“But from the insurance standpoint, the way it works… the NHL contracts that the players have in place are covered in the World Cup just as though they were playing for their NHL team. So if a player has a multi-year contract – three, four, five, six, whatever years it may be – and they get injured in the World Cup, they get paid as long as that contract would be if they’re injured and can’t play.

“As far as the unsigned – or I have a guy who has one year left on his contract – they go ahead and make sure that you have at least the equivalent of two years’ coverage. The maximum is $3.5 million that they will cover, but at least in the case of my player, who is making less than that at this point, they project that he’s going to sign a new contract that will be of a significant level and go ahead and give him coverage for the year that he’s not covered. Or, in the case of an unsigned player or a restricted free agent, they would cover him for two years.

“So I think at the end of the day, the player is reasonably well-covered. There’s always some risk, but there’s nothing that can protect the team if someone were to go out and they lose an asset. But I guess the World Cup, you almost have to look at as an extension of NHL play to some degree, and I know team competitiveness-wise, everyone is sharing some risk with their best players being there. I guess much like the Olympics, or even the world championships, it’s hard to take all risk out of the game.”

Whether it’s a restricted free agent like Johnny Gaudreau – a young star without a contract in line for a large payday – or someone similar, should projected career earnings be covered in case of a potential career-ending injury?

“Well, it’s like all insurance. You have to balance the cost versus what you get,” said Bartlett. “The one point I will make about career-ending disability insurance – if someone literally were not able to play – that insurance comes to the player tax-free. So, in essence, when you figure a tax rate for a professional athlete, to cover $10 million of earnings, you probably only have to insure $5 million because it’s tax-free – as opposed to a taxable salary.

“But again, I don’t think you’re ever going to – within a reasonable cost to the player, unless someone says, ‘Hey, I don’t care how much it costs. I’m going to go out and spend $200,000 to buy $20 million of insurance,’ or whatever it may be. But it’s pretty staggering. Especially if you’re an older player. The insurance market works that the younger players, the cost of insurance is less. They worry about players who have a little more mileage on them, and who are maybe closer to being in a position where, ‘Okay, that’s a career-ending injury.’

“The younger the player, the cheaper the insurance. So Gaudreau, for instance, would be able to insure himself for a lot less than Jaromir Jagr.”