Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
That part is a big for me. They made an agreement in the partnership that the league would extensively pursue creative ways to increase hockey revenue, yet they prevent relocation of teams that are not bringing in revenue. It's not a 50/50 split when one side still has all the decision making power and are still only serving their own personal interests.
|
There's a lot of truth in that post. The dynamic between sports leagues vs unions is very complicated since it is such a fine line between whether they are 30 individual employers competing for employees or one employer who can pay their employees whatever they want.
I'm sure the players would love it if it was 30 individual employers. The league would love it if they were a single employer with no other option for their employees. The truth is that it is somewhere in between, and the happy medium is both sides realizing that and having a CBA that is a compromise.
Bettman's NHL has always strove for being recognized as a single employer, but also one that strives to bring the costs low enough for the lowest revenue teams, but at no expense to the highest revenue teams.
The NHL wants to sell its players that 30 financially healthy teams is required for them to all have jobs, but never acknowledges that teams like Toronto need to have a financially healthy league to play in to keep their revenues coming in.
All of that is a recipe for continued labour strife that combined with an impending revenue downturn, will eventually ruin the league.