“The fact is we did what we had to do at the time. Our research showed that [the fans] were supportive of what we were doing because they wanted the problems fixed. They didn’t want a Band-Aid. They wanted better competitive balance and better economics in terms of franchise health and stability.” –Gary Bettman via The Instigator by Jonathan Gatehouse
If the NHL returns to play without a more comprehensive revenue sharing plan, this lockout will have been a complete waste.
Bettman is adamant in quotes and interviews about needing to draw a line in the sand for the 2004-05 lockout. He’s convinced that the NHL caved too quickly in 1994-95 without fixing the league’s structural problems, problems that he fixed, apparently, back in 2005.
The funny thing is that either the owners are lying in this labour dispute, or Bettman was completely wrong about the growth potential for the league. Some of that comes with the strengthening of the Canadian dollar, but the league is still a rich man’s game. In the United States, it’s the Philadelphias, Bostons and New Yorks that are financially healthy. As the rich get richer, the poor teams have to spend more money, and with the limited revenue sharing the NHL offers to its weaker teams, they have a harder time competing.
I refrain from using “small market” because in reality, Phoenix isn’t a small market. St. Louis isn’t a small market either, and neither is Denver or Dallas, but the four teams have exhibited an aversion to spending money on hockey players like small markets in Nashville or Long Island. That hurts the NHLPA more than the NHL—since players collected 54-57% of league revenues, there’s an opportunity cost involved by not having big market teams collect revenue, and spend money like big market teams ought to like they do in baseball or football.






