Bumping with me typing up an ESPN the Magazine article. It's by EJ Hradek, and he has some pretty good ideas about the game. The article is called "IF WE RAN THE GAME" and there's 7 ideas.
1: GET OVER THE CAP FIXATION: The league can't expect players to go from no economic restrictions to a salary cap, just like that. A luxury tax is a reasonable compromise. The players, meanwhile, will have to swallow a reduction in team payroll. We propose a $34M high-end trigger (average payroll was approximately $44M last season) with one exemption (20% of total payroll up to a max of $6M). Teams exceeding the threshold up to $39M will pay a 50% tax on each dollar; above $39M costs you 100% on each dollar. The tax money would be distributed equally to all clubs below the threshold. On the flip side, a payroll floor needs to e established, say at $27M. You don't hit that number, you don't get to share revenue. This way the NHL gets economic balance--and fans will know their teams can stay competitive. Neither side will love it, which is why it works.
2: HOW ABOUT SOME REAL REVENUE SHARING? Hockey needs a system in which all 30 teams contribute a percentage of revenues to a central fund, with the money redistributed equally to each club. The owners propose a plan where only the top 10 revenue-producing teams contribute. But why penalize only teams that are successful? In our plan, based on league revenue numbers, each team would get nearly $26M, with all teams contributing a percentage of their gate, in-arena revenues and local TV to broadcast, sponsership and special games dough. That would make for 30 stronger franchises, and a stronger---and more unified---league.
3: NEW PLAYERS SHOULD SUFFER IN SIX-FIGURE SILENCE: In sports labor wars, unions are quick to cave on rookie rights to gain other concessions. The NHL's new CBA should be no different. Players will have a $500K cap in the first year, $600K in the second year and $700K in the third. They can have signing and performance bonuses, but those too should be capped. A big problem with the current CBA is that rookies get substantial bonuses that are easy to reach. Under the old deal, a rookie could max out at $9M over three years. As we see it, the most an entry-level player will be able to make over three years is $3.6M. That's a lot less, but then again, the season will be shorter (see No. 7)
4: CLUBS SHOULD GET ARBITRATION TOO: The current system, in which only players can request mediation and only the ones who know they're likely to win do so, has driven salaries sky high. No wonder owners would like to eliminate arbitration altogether. But that would create another problem---long contract impasses that would keep key players on the sidelines. Give teams the right to arbitration, so they'll have an apparatus to occasionally push salaries down when warranted. It will also take market pressure to re-sign players out of the equation. See how easy this all is?
5: GET RID OF THE QUALIFYING SYSTEM: This system, which forces a team to offer a 10% raise to any player making less than the average league salary if it wants to keep his rights, has created a steady pull on salaries from the bottom of the pay scale over the past 10 years. But it's not fair to make a team give a raise to a guy who might not deserve it. Players, remember, are still protected from slaving away at unfair wages, they can always file for arbitration. The owners were dumb to agree to qualifying in 1994, but neither they nor the fans should continue to suffer for their stupidity.
6: LOWER THE AGE FOR UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENCY: NHL teams have control of their players from ages 18-31; we say make it 18-29. Considering the other concessions we're proposing, owners can afford to loosen their grip. In fact, they should welcome the change. Yes, stars would hit the market earlier, but with more players available, the laws of supply and demand dictate that the average salaries for these UFA's would drop. With our new luxury tax in place, the clubs will be better off if there's a large number of free agents competing for the same dollars.
7: ADMIT THAT LESS IS MORE: Everyone (fans included) knows it: an 82 game regular season is too long. Players just can't be consistant playing three times in four nights. And while owners will lose revenues with a shorter schedule, they'll also lose expenses (travel, building operations, salaries). We propose a 70-game slate in which division rivals face off seven times and conference opponents not in the same division play three. The final 12 will be against nonconference foes. Fans get a better product, and the players are fresher come spring. Even Gary and Bob should see why that's smart business.
Comments? I agree with some of it, not all of it, but at least it's something. I like the revenue sharing and smaller schedule ideas a lot.
