Hockey Limited

Troy Shockley
Mar 30, 2004

The Stanley Cup Playoffs are almost here.

Focus on those seven words right now because in a few months, they will likely be replaced with two decidedly less exciting words.

Work stoppage.

Admittedly there are those who will put forth the "baseball argument." They will cite Major League Baseball's near-miss at a lockout when the two sides managed to put together a new collective bargaining agreement at the last minute.

Don't expect the same from the NHL.

Commissioner Gary Bettman definitely seems to be ready for a long battle with the Players' Association.

"If the choice is short-term pain versus bleeding to death over time, then we're going to take the short-term pain because we have to fix it," Bettman said in October of 2002. "We owe it to our fans to fix it. If there's any guarantee that you want me to give fans, it's that we're going to fix it. We simply don't have a choice."

More recently, Bettman has been quoted more optimistically, saying he believes the two sides will come together to prevent a lockout.

Step into the Way Back Machine, though, to that very same Toronto news conference in 2002.

"We're going to fix it," Bettman said. "If the union doesn't agree, that may result in some difficult times."

Don't think for a minute that either side has backed down since his original statements two years ago. The Players' Association has informed its members to be prepared to hold out for as long as two years after the current bargaining agreement expires on Sept. 15.

To draw from an historical example, Bettman is playing the part of Santa Anna, while the Players' Association is locked up in the Alamo with no real chance of victory. Neither side, though, is willing to put up the white flag and negotiate to save the league.

Why are the two sides so entrenched?

The Players' Association's biggest concern is an imminent salary cap. Despite the fact that most other major sports have been forced to employ a cap, the NHLPA is determined to prevent it from happening in their sport. Super stars love super bank accounts.

The managers, though, need a salary cap. By stopping their players from taking the ice, the revenue lost will actually be less than if they allowed the season to continue with finances the way they are now. This is a business after all, and their business is hemorrhaging money.

The league has, in fact, had revenue growth over the last few years. The problem is all of that added revenue was pumped into expansion, while teams in Canada were struggling to stay afloat. Then, by expanding the number of teams in the league, the owners created stress on the supply and demand of players. And, as they should have learned in Management 101, when the supply remains constant and the demand increases, prices increase exponentially.

This led to the owners' second mistake - they can't say "no."

When a player says he won't play for less than $8 million, rather than asking if he wants a new car with that, owners needed to say "no." If they understood that, they would be a lot better off than they are today.

So who's right and who's wrong? That's hard to say. You can't really blame either side - but the blame for who caused the situation lands squarely on the owners.

Unfortunately for hockey fans, the players will hole up in their Alamo for as long as they can and Bettman will not retreat until the battle is won.

But hey - in the meantime, there's always the World Hockey Association.

This article has 5 comments in the message forum.

Editorials are opinions of the author, not this website, the owner of this website or any of its members.