But the players refuse salary
caps outright. They observe that the league has afforded their salaries
until now and that would not have been possible if escalating salaries had
not been factored into owners' business plans. The players' association
executive director, Bob Goodenow, goes so far as to say that there will
never be a salary cap. He has advised players that a lockout could last up
to three seasons.
The trouble with Bettman's position is that
he gives the impression that contraction of the league is negative. In
fact, contraction would mean short-term loss, but significant long- term
gain for the league. Critics wonder if Bettman has been flogging the issue
of salary caps to keep the players union on the defensive.
A strike would force the liquidation of
several teams and divert blame to the players who collectively have
refused a salary cap, but are considered by the public to be excessively
wealthy. Bettman could cap the players' salaries inadvertently and do so
under the guise of trying to get the players back on the ice.
For Bettman and the NHL, a strike would
ultimately drive down players' salaries. Contraction would result in
immediate job losses for the players, but an increased pool of available
athletes from which the remaining owners could choose.
There would be more players vying for fewer
positions. Competition for positions would increase and players would be
inclined to accept smaller salaries for the privilege of playing. This
would prevent ownership from becoming embroiled in expensive bidding wars
for players.
“Right now in the NHL if you want the top
player, you have to pay top dollar. If you pay top dollar you increase the
value of everyone else,” explains sports marketing consultant, Bob
Kirwan.
Kirwan is sympathetic to the players, but
observes, “an NHL strike could be the best thing that has ever happened,
if a lot of things change.”
Kirwan suggests that although the players may
be facing an inevitable salary cap, the changes a strike could bring about
in NHL hockey might be what is best for the game itself.
“If the NHL does go out, they're leaving
the door open for the audience to go out and see other leagues,” says
Kirwan.
Although hockey is very popular in Canada,
traditionally it has been a hard sell in the American market. The NHL's
television contracts with ABC and ESPN are coming up at the end of the
2003 season and a strike would rob the league of an advantageous
negotiating position. While players and ownership square off, the NHL fan
base will dwindle.
Kirwan believes that people who really want
to watch hockey will seek the game out. The minor leagues will have an
increased fan base and as a result will have more incentive to play better
hockey.
“Fans always want to watch the best that is
available,” he says.
This could mean great things for hockey. If a
strike is imminent, the game will have to evolve at the minor league
level. To retain any new audience, the minor leagues will have to
“develop a better product,” says Kirwan. When and if the NHL resumes,
the game will have improved. Combined with increased competition for
positions on NHL teams a new standard of hockey will have been set.
At what expense this change will come,
remains to be seen. A strike or lockout could be calamitous for both the
players and ownership. To fans, the economics of the pending NHL strike
remain largely, what Stagg calls, “the hocus-pocus of sports
franchises.”
For now, neither the players nor the owners
and least of all the fans know what will become of the NHL. Most fans are
ambivalent about a strike and reflect on the fallout of other major league
sports strikes.
“I think they are idiots to go on
strike,” says Richard Powers, professor of sports marketing at the University of Toronto,
“and the perfect example is baseball.”
The Major League Baseball strike of 1994 came on the heels of two championship
seasons for the Toronto Blue Jays. Ticket sales have never returned to their pre-strike
numbers. One can't help but wonder if the NHL will face a similar fate.
