Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
There are examples, sure. Just like there are examples of players going broke. But I would bet that in those situations, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.
One is more financially risky (but also potentially and usually more lucrative) and the other is riskier to the health and short earning duration.
|
The difference is that no player has ever gone broke from PLAYING hockey. Owners have gone broke trying to finance arenas/run teams.
Do you think the players should get a greater than 50% share of revenue because they risk injuries and have a shorter duration careers?
I think that's a choice they make and they shouldn't get extra compensation for it. There is nothing stopping them from continuing to work in the hockey industry after they retire.