Sunday, September 12, 2004

Hockey Not In Canada

...or anywhere else for that matter, not NHL-calibre hockey and not for quite a long time to come.
As a lifelong fan of the game, I'm more upset than I should be at the prospect of TV-free Saturday nights. And while polls repeatedly show that the majority of Canadians blame the players for this state of affairs, I do not. I blame the owners.
Oh, don't get me wrong: the players make way too much money. Professional athletes by and large rank just behind movie starlets and pop singers on the "overpaid non-contributors to society" scale. In a logical world, the truly essential people (doctors, teachers, firefighters, police officers and such) would be paid the way we pay athletes. And athletes' pay would be based strictly on performance.
But alas, every time I open my eyes I still find myself in this world, wherein a hockey player can be awarded an eight million dollar contract just because somebody thinks he could lead the team in scoring. Yup, I won't exactly be feeling sorry for these overpaid, over-pampered oafs.
But who's paying them?
Answer that and you've rightly assessed blame for this lockout.
Let's say your boss comes up to you and says 'listen. Our department's been pulling its weight lately and you've been a valued part of that. So I'd like to give you a raise, say, to $100,000 a year. '

Do you
(a) laugh in his face
(b) say 'no, thank you, but no, I'm really only worth my current $40,000 salary'
(c) take the money and run, baby!

Well, most of us, living as we do in the real world, would probably chose (a). He's joking, right? People who choose (b) are due to be canonized any day now. And someone who takes option (c) is either greedy or an opportunist, your call.

Now suppose that throughout your company, all the bosses were doling out money like this. Wanda, that new hire out in Reception, is making $100,000. Now Wanda is what you call your dim bulb. She looks flashy and can sometimes pretend like she can do the job, but most days she just doesn't show up. And you're in here busting your ass off and getting results and making $40,000 a year. Doesn't that get you a tad pissed off? Like, if Wanda's worth a hundred kilobucks, you're worth at least double that?
Yeah.
Look, here's proof that the NHL's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) can work well...if it's used properly. Last season, NHL salaries went up 2%. That's less than the rate of inflation. Why is that? Because (most of) the owners got smart and stopped spending money they didn't have. If the New York Rangers are losing money, they really have only themselves to blame. Until they dumped salary last season, there wasn't a single player on that team who was--even by the absurd market standards of hockey--earning anywhere near half his paycheque.

The players' union made quite a few concessions in their latest offer, but have no interest in labouring under a salary cap. Now, your average Jane slaving away down on the cube farm knows perfectly well that there is, in effect, a 'salary cap' on her position...her company calls it a maximum, and it's damn hard (or impossible) to get it.
But Jane could jump ship.
Yes, Jane could go off and work at Agro-Cubicle, the big cube farm conglomerate, where they pay better for top talent. Agro-Cubicle is setting a market value for Jane's position that is considerably in excess of what she's making.
The NHL owners are doing the same thing, merely setting a market value for each player, each talent level. If those market values are completely ludicrous, do you blame the player?

The owners, if they really gave a puck about the fans, should be negotiating right now at the very least. The players came out with the most recent proposal, and they weren't even finished presenting it before the NHL adjourned the meeting. It's obvious the owners have no interest even in discussing the issues. They would rather punish the players for taking all that money they were so freely offered.

Who suffers in all this? Not the millionaire players, and not the billionaire owners. It's us fans who suffer. Mark my words: for every eight weeks this lockout lasts, one U.S.-based team will bite the dust...maybe not right away, but within a year of settlement.
Part of me loves this idea--there are probably fifteen teams in the United States that don't deserve to be there--but how would I feel if I was a devout and devoted fan of, say, the Chicago Blackhawks?

At any rate, yours truly will be paying more attention to junior hockey this year. I've never cared before--call it hockey snobbery--but I'll have to get my hockey fix somewhere...

No comments: