Say it ain't so Bob!
Am I missing something? It seems to me that the NHLPA cannot be stupid enough to think they will benefit from allowing themselves to be locked out. According to the NHL, player salaries last season accounted for approximately 75% of the revenue brought into the league. The league figures that in an economic system that works for all NHL teams, player salaries must eat up no more than 50% of the league revenue. If I'm a highly paid player, that means there's a lot of money I'm no longer going to be getting. I can see that each side has a valid argument here. But...
An acquaintance of mine here at school has a cousin who plays in the NHL. I won't mention who the player is, but his defense of the players' decision to allow themselves to be locked out went something like this: "Just like doctors have a reasonable expectation to make a large amount of money because they're at the top of their field, we hockey players expect to make a certain amount of money for being at the top of our field, and we won't accept anything less." My problem with that attitude is this: YOU WILL STILL BE INCREDIBLY RICH! Playing in the NHL is not an easy job, but it's a fantastically good one nonetheless. I would be more than happy to switch places with any player who feels he's being ripped off in his industry.
Yes, if you are one of the more highly paid players in the league, you will be getting paid substantially less... but you will still be making a shocking amount of money. This makes it very difficult for me to support the NHLPA's position in this dispute. The reality of the situation is that they salaries they're currently being paid are simply not sustainable. Either there's no hockey right now because of a lockout, or there's no hockey five years from now, because the NHL is bankrupt.
In any case, aren't I indirectly the one who pays the players' salaries? If they aren't happy with what they're being offered then maybe I don't want to give them any of my money anymore. I'm not joking, just ask the Blue Jays.
An acquaintance of mine here at school has a cousin who plays in the NHL. I won't mention who the player is, but his defense of the players' decision to allow themselves to be locked out went something like this: "Just like doctors have a reasonable expectation to make a large amount of money because they're at the top of their field, we hockey players expect to make a certain amount of money for being at the top of our field, and we won't accept anything less." My problem with that attitude is this: YOU WILL STILL BE INCREDIBLY RICH! Playing in the NHL is not an easy job, but it's a fantastically good one nonetheless. I would be more than happy to switch places with any player who feels he's being ripped off in his industry.
Yes, if you are one of the more highly paid players in the league, you will be getting paid substantially less... but you will still be making a shocking amount of money. This makes it very difficult for me to support the NHLPA's position in this dispute. The reality of the situation is that they salaries they're currently being paid are simply not sustainable. Either there's no hockey right now because of a lockout, or there's no hockey five years from now, because the NHL is bankrupt.
In any case, aren't I indirectly the one who pays the players' salaries? If they aren't happy with what they're being offered then maybe I don't want to give them any of my money anymore. I'm not joking, just ask the Blue Jays.
