Tweet
Hockey mess directly due to Bettman
October 16, 2004
BY MICHAEL ROSENBERG
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The NHL season was supposed to start this week, but the league is stuck in a labor dispute. Thus, we are robbed of the annual pleasure of saying, "Is it really hockey season ALREADY? Good Lord, did they take ANY time off?"
Seriously, who can miss hockey in October? The leaves are still changing color. As we all know, it's not hockey season until a cold wind blows through the palm trees.
At least, that's what the NHL seems to think.
And that's a big reason why the league is in this mess.
This will stun young readers, but just a few years ago, Nashville trudged along without a hockey team, and I don't recall any country songs longing for one. Florida also had no team, which was fine, because everybody moved there to get out of cold weather.
Then NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said (I'm paraphrasing here), "If we could somehow get a bunch of Europeans and Canadians to play hockey in cities like Tampa and Raleigh, the U.S. TV ratings would go through the roof!"
Shockingly, that didn't work. So the NHL still relies overwhelmingly on ticket sales and other local revenues -- which means popular teams like the Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs bring in a lot more money. And, quite naturally, they spend it on the best players they can find. And that means other teams "can't compete."
The problem is not that the NHL went into "non-traditional" hockey markets. The problem is that the league went there without a logical plan.
Bettman is basically complaining that Nashville and Tampa Bay can't compete against Detroit and Philadelphia. Gee, do ya think he should have thought about that before putting teams in Nashville and Tampa?
Now Florida has two teams. New York has three and only pays attention to one. (Interestingly, it's the worst one.) L.A. has two hockey teams and no football teams (but, collectively, a lovely tan).
Bettman did this the wrong way. When he got the job as commissioner, this is what he should have told the players association:
"We'd like to expand. It will add jobs for you, add revenue for us and help the game become more popular. But we can't do it without a balanced revenue system -- to make sure that the small markets can compete with the big ones. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find out who Gordie Howe is."
To be fair, some of the troubled teams were around before Bettman discovered the sport -- Pittsburgh, Calgary and Edmonton, for example. But when Bettman talks about 20 teams losing money, a good number of them are only around because he created them.
Ask yourself: Of all the franchises Gary Bettman has created, either through expansion or tacitly encouraged relocation, how many are making money?
Any?
There are other teams in the red. Last season, the Wings were one of them. They lost money because they had one of the league's highest payrolls -- an admirable attempt to win the Stanley Cup, but their choice. Another is rumored to be the high-payroll New York Rangers. They also chose to take that risk.
Now the NHL wants a salary cap -- supposedly at $31 million. Well, the Wings had a $78 million payroll last season -- they had the money and they were willing to spend it. The NHL wants the players to say, "Hey, Mike Ilitch, keep $47 million -- it's best for the league."
The players want a luxury tax -- if a team has a high payroll, it must throw extra money back in the pot for everybody else. Their initial proposal is weak, but it's a start.
Nobody wants to hear the word "fair" in an argument when we're talking about millionaire athletes, but remember: owners are millionaires too, and a luxury tax is the fairest way to fix this mess.
"We don't believe in a luxury tax system because there's no evidence that it affects behavior, eliminates disparities among what teams spend or reduces economic losses," Bettman said this week in an online chat. "It is unpredictable and ineffective at best."
Ten years ago, Bettman almost canceled a season because he wanted a better collective-bargaining agreement. Now he's in the same boat.
The owners are ultimately going to get their way, because most of them really are losing money, and because the system really does need fixing.
The dire reality is why the owners are winning the PR battle. Fine -- blame the players for not recognizing that teams are in trouble. But blame the league for putting those teams in trouble. Let's all understand how we got here. Gary Bettman, to use a Gary Bettman phrase, has been ineffective at best.
BY MICHAEL ROSENBERG
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The NHL season was supposed to start this week, but the league is stuck in a labor dispute. Thus, we are robbed of the annual pleasure of saying, "Is it really hockey season ALREADY? Good Lord, did they take ANY time off?"
Seriously, who can miss hockey in October? The leaves are still changing color. As we all know, it's not hockey season until a cold wind blows through the palm trees.
At least, that's what the NHL seems to think.
And that's a big reason why the league is in this mess.
This will stun young readers, but just a few years ago, Nashville trudged along without a hockey team, and I don't recall any country songs longing for one. Florida also had no team, which was fine, because everybody moved there to get out of cold weather.
Then NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said (I'm paraphrasing here), "If we could somehow get a bunch of Europeans and Canadians to play hockey in cities like Tampa and Raleigh, the U.S. TV ratings would go through the roof!"
Shockingly, that didn't work. So the NHL still relies overwhelmingly on ticket sales and other local revenues -- which means popular teams like the Red Wings and Toronto Maple Leafs bring in a lot more money. And, quite naturally, they spend it on the best players they can find. And that means other teams "can't compete."
The problem is not that the NHL went into "non-traditional" hockey markets. The problem is that the league went there without a logical plan.
Bettman is basically complaining that Nashville and Tampa Bay can't compete against Detroit and Philadelphia. Gee, do ya think he should have thought about that before putting teams in Nashville and Tampa?
Now Florida has two teams. New York has three and only pays attention to one. (Interestingly, it's the worst one.) L.A. has two hockey teams and no football teams (but, collectively, a lovely tan).
Bettman did this the wrong way. When he got the job as commissioner, this is what he should have told the players association:
"We'd like to expand. It will add jobs for you, add revenue for us and help the game become more popular. But we can't do it without a balanced revenue system -- to make sure that the small markets can compete with the big ones. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find out who Gordie Howe is."
To be fair, some of the troubled teams were around before Bettman discovered the sport -- Pittsburgh, Calgary and Edmonton, for example. But when Bettman talks about 20 teams losing money, a good number of them are only around because he created them.
Ask yourself: Of all the franchises Gary Bettman has created, either through expansion or tacitly encouraged relocation, how many are making money?
Any?
There are other teams in the red. Last season, the Wings were one of them. They lost money because they had one of the league's highest payrolls -- an admirable attempt to win the Stanley Cup, but their choice. Another is rumored to be the high-payroll New York Rangers. They also chose to take that risk.
Now the NHL wants a salary cap -- supposedly at $31 million. Well, the Wings had a $78 million payroll last season -- they had the money and they were willing to spend it. The NHL wants the players to say, "Hey, Mike Ilitch, keep $47 million -- it's best for the league."
The players want a luxury tax -- if a team has a high payroll, it must throw extra money back in the pot for everybody else. Their initial proposal is weak, but it's a start.
Nobody wants to hear the word "fair" in an argument when we're talking about millionaire athletes, but remember: owners are millionaires too, and a luxury tax is the fairest way to fix this mess.
"We don't believe in a luxury tax system because there's no evidence that it affects behavior, eliminates disparities among what teams spend or reduces economic losses," Bettman said this week in an online chat. "It is unpredictable and ineffective at best."
Ten years ago, Bettman almost canceled a season because he wanted a better collective-bargaining agreement. Now he's in the same boat.
The owners are ultimately going to get their way, because most of them really are losing money, and because the system really does need fixing.
The dire reality is why the owners are winning the PR battle. Fine -- blame the players for not recognizing that teams are in trouble. But blame the league for putting those teams in trouble. Let's all understand how we got here. Gary Bettman, to use a Gary Bettman phrase, has been ineffective at best.
Comment