One year later, the 2012-2013 NHL lockout still seems ridiculous.
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the start of last year’s NHL Lockout. Thankfully, we got through it (somehow) and salvaged a 48-game season. But for almost 4 months, all we had to talk about were meetings, negotiations, meetings, offers, more meetings, and, of course, Steve Fehr’s fashion.
Player salaries were getting out of hand, the owners said, both in length and in amount. It was a tedious affair, but in the end it got us what we wanted, and when we look back in perspective, a relatively unnecessary one.
Here we are one year later, and not much has changed (besides the fact that we missed hockey for 4 months). Big contracts are still being thrown around with a relative carefree attitude. Teams may be a bit more stingy with their role/depth players, but the big contracts are still there.
Examples you say? Nathan Horton : 7 years, $37.1 million. Ryan Clowe : 5 years, $24.5 million. Mike Ribeiro : 4 years, $22 million. David Clarkson : 7 year, 36.75 million. And the list goes on.
According to capgeek, 88 unrestricted free agents have signed contracts since the beginning of July totaling nearly half a billion dollars, at an average of $2.873 million a year. That’s significant considering the league’s average salary of $2.45 million, and even more so considering the salary cap is falling to $64.3 million for this year. Teams have less money to shell out this season, but somehow they’ve managed to pay 88 players more than the league’s average for next year. So why did we need a lockout again?
That’s easy. The owners wanted a bigger slice of the pie. And they got it. Sure there’s some rhetoric going back and forth, some issues that both sides wanted and/or needed to be addressed in the deal (including the contract-term-limit hill that the NHL apparently died on), but when all is said and done, it all comes down to revenue.
Just look at the last two lockouts. The owners wanted more money in 2004, so they cancelled a season in order to implement a salary cap and to grab 43% of hockey-related revenues. Nine years later, they felt that there share wasn’t enough, so they’ve brought it up to 50% now thanks to the latest lockout. Very non-coincidentally, the NHL’s overall hockey-related revenues have increased an average of 18.57% over the past 20 years (prior to the 1994 lockout), from approximately $700 million to $3.3 billion. That’s not just the inflation factor, it’s an impressive increase in overall popularity. Say what you will about Gary Bettman’s insistence on keeping US teams in bad situations, but you can’t discount his success in growing the market, especially in the States.
Anyway, let’s get back to the main point, which is that the owners are still to blame for the lockout. Sure both sides got some of what they wanted, but the main issue I see with these three consecutive lockouts is that there’s no way to assure there won’t be a fourth. If the NHL’s revenue continues to grow, don’t you think the owners will want more of it?
When the current CBA expires in 2022 (seems like far away, but it’ll come quickly enough), who says the owners won’t demand to increase their share from 50% to 55%? And the when that CBA expires, maybe they’ll want to jump from 55% to 60%. Is this going to create a conflict, and consequently, a lockout, every time? I know these are rhetorical questions, but the thought is frightening.
I don’t know what the players can do, the owners seem to have all the leverage. Honestly, I’m not sure losing a season is that much of a threat to the owners anymore; fans have shown again and again that they’ll just keep coming back. The players, on the other hand, know that losing a season is much more difficult, especially to the dozens that weren’t able to find their way back on an NHL roster as their careers were nearing the end.
The main thing is that the owners need to set the example if they want to be trusted. If owners want to stop the ridiculous spending, here’s one solution: STOP THE RIDICULOUS SPENDING. Last time I checked, players can’t sign a contract unless the other side, known generally as the “team” (and condoned by what we call the “owner”), signs said player to said contract.
I’m not saying that the NHL players are overpaid, and I’m not saying that they’re underpaid. All I’m doing is observing how much they are paid, and thinking back to the lockout, wondering why the hell we needed to go through that. (Ok, I’m happy they limited the contracts to 8 years. Those 15-year contracts were just ridiculous. You know it, I know it, and Charles Wang even knew it. He just didn’t care).
I don’t need to draw this out any longer, because, frankly, we were all tired of the lockout while it was happening, let alone one year later. But here’s the thing; owners, go ahead and pay big money. Give Cody Hogdson a 6-year, $22.5 million. Give Alex Pietrangelo a 7 year, $42 million contract. Just don’t come crying to me in 2022 saying that things aren’t going so well and that you need a bigger share of hockey-related revenues. Because if 2013 (and 2004 and 1994) are any indication, I don’t think things are as bad as you make them out to be.
FANTASTIC FORE 
