Questions about the hockey strike.

Factual Questions
1

Though I am a Canadian I confess to not really being a huge hockey fan.

Probably too much exposure to junior hockey with my brothers when I was young.

I’ve been asking a couple of questions about the hockey strike and not been getting answers so I’m hoping the straight dope can help me out.

Forgive me, if you’ve answered these already or if these questions seem naive.

How long can the players go without playing?

(I know they make the big money, but I’m thinking they are probably living large too, so realistically how long can they hold out?)

How long can the owners go with no hockey being played? No bums in the seats, as it were.

What about the zillions the league gets for television rights? Do they have to give that money back as there is nothing to broadcast?

Without seats to sell or broadcast rights, no advertising to sell, is there a league?

2

Well, anything that an American can do for a Canadian regarding hockey ;).

Well, first of all, a lot of the players ARE playing; some of the younger ones in the AHL, and the remainder in European leagues. If they aren’t and somehow they are really “suffering”, then the NHLPA has collected a pretty sizable war chest to pay out in order to keep players from wanting to cross picket lines.

Well, I’ve heard owners say that they’re losing less money locked out than they would if they were actually playing! Before the lockout, every team had to contribute $10 million dollars in order to assure that less solvent teams (Buffalo, Ottawa, Sun Belters, etc) would be as capable of standing their ground as a Detroit, Montreal or Toronto.

I don’t know the specifics of the Canadian deal, but I’d hardly call US rights zillions!! NBC literally gets the NHL for no money, and I think ESPN signed in the range of 60 million dollars (to put it in perspective, each of the 32 individual TEAMS in the NFL gets far more than that from their broadcast contract), so NBC isn’t losing out on much, and I’m sure ESPN doesn’t have to pay for content they don’t get.

“If a tree fell in the woods…”

Well, of course there is an entity known as the National Hockey League, with offices in both Toronto and New York, with a commisioner and everything. The 30 teams are still members of that league, so unless things go too far and the league dissolves, the entity will still stay there.

3

it’s a lockout, not a strike.

big fricken difference. the players were willing to show up & play without a contract this season, it’s the owners (i.e the billionaires, not the millionaires) who are the most deserving of your hockey-fan-in-withdrawal wrath at the moment.
but, there are a few teams that are better off finacially by not playing this year (losing less money) so a new cba must be a fair deal, or else nhl fans are gonna be proper fucked by largish implosions in the long term.

i’m not convinced that the players union has the fans best interest at heart, though they are the side, at this point anyway, willing to negotiate i.e by putting a 24% across the board wage rollback on the table, for starters.

i don’t want to get into the (somewhat philosophical, somewhat practical) arguments of hard vs. soft cap vs. luxury tax ideas at this point, though i will return to this thread in the future to expand, especially if asked.

but in general, keep in mind that hockey is an international sport, and there are many other leagues (esp. in europe) in which nhl players can be, and are (because of of the lockout) competing in. their financial well-being, for the near term anyways, is not drastically impaired by the labour impasse. or not to a degree that would significantly weaken the unions position in any case.

as for the league (i.e ownership groups,) they are largely billionaires, or billionaire holding corps at any rate, that are looking for profit maximization above fan concerns, above players concerns, above it all. and the labour dispute to many of them is nothing more than a series of “meetings” resulting in a tax write off.

now, to be fair, not all nhl ownerships are as described in the above paragraph. some are small market based teams that cannot compete with the rangers/leafs/wings/avs of the league. their concerns are serious, and must be addressed by the new cba.

but is the bettman demand for a hardcap a cureall for the league? in my not so humble opinion, not even close. not by a long shot. but i’ll come back to why later.

4

and i forgot to add, those getting screwed in the longest, slowest, and most up against the wall kind of way are those who are employees of the arenas and bars/restaurants/etc. around the arenas who have quite the lack of business for this time of year.