Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I wouldn't say zero risk. Obviously, they are the ones exposed to the health and safety risks. Not to mention that they have relatively short careers compared to an owner. They also split up their 50% among a much larger group.
And what risk do the owners take? When was the last time a franchise folded or was sold for less than what it was bought for? Don't be fooled... they always come out ahead one war another. Whether that is from straight forward revenue, asset value, side businesses indirectly related to the team, or getting people to fund their arenas. Most owners come out well ahead just like players.
50/50 just seems like an arbitrary and convenient split. There is no doubt that 50/50 is equal, but that is not the same as being "fair" or "equitable".
Or maybe 50/50 favours the players too much? i don't see it, but I could be convinced to change my mind.
|
Pittsburgh went broke one year to the point that they couldn't pay their players. Mario got paid in shares.
In fact there are a lot of examples of NHL teams going bankrupt. When your team goes bankrupt the owner doesn't get any of that money from the sale of the franchise if his debts are larger than his revenue from the sale.
I'd say it's way more risky financially to own a team than play for one.
Player contracts on the other hand are guaranteed, even in the case of injury.