Permanent Decertification Is Certifiable

Graphic Comments
December 20 2012 10:12AM

Decertification is certifiable

The momentum is growing. Every day the calls to decertify or otherwise disband the NHLPA are growing. And I don't mean from NHL players.

No, hockey fans and media alike are now so fed up with what passes for collective bargaining in the NHL that they want to blow up the entire system. We're not talking just decertifying for the purposes of forcing the NHL to actually make a deal under threat of anti-trust lawsuits, i.e. what the NHL is alleging and what the NHLPA surely intends to do.

No, there are now calls to permanently abolish the NHLPA and in so doing completely free up all restrictions to player movement, including the NHL draft.

Personally, I'm not so sure this is a great idea...

The world of international soccer is held up as an example of the halcyon days to come after we get rid of the NHLPA. You know, the system put together by those fine, upstanding gentlemen at FIFA. At least in one respect the transition from the NHL won't be too drastic.:

At least they have something in common

Under the international soccer transfer system, there are few restrictions on player movement when they are not under contract. Essentially everyone is a free agent at the end of any contract. Heck, they're actually free agents as soon as they have six months or less remaining on their contract; they can make a deal with a new team at that point, they just can't join them until their current contract is over and the transfer window opens. (Special thanks to our own Patrick Johnson for helping me understand the arcane world of the FIFA transfer system.)

Can you imagine Sidney Crosby signing a new contract to move to the Flyers while still having six months to play out on a contract with the Penguins?

Which isn't say that an NHL without player contracting restrictions would necessarily result in rules similar to those FIFA has developed in light of various challenges to its transfer system over the years. But conceptually, the results would be similar: no entry draft to assign or otherwise hold "rights" to sign players (no restriction on signing a contract at a younger age, for that matter).

But what's the draw in this type of system?

Sure, for players the benefits look obvious. But looks can be deceiving. We've seen how even mediocre players have gotten paid as soon as they hit free agency in the NHL's restrictive system. It's easy to assume that this trend would just be amplified under universal free agency.

Freedom 25

I'm sure the elite players would substantially increase in value as free agents under a cap-less system. As Tyler Dellow laid out in a couple of recent posts, the current cap structure under the previous CBA has limited the salary growth of elite players, as compared to everyone else:

I’ve argued before that the best players did really poorly in the 2005 CBA, in that there was fantastic salary growth for lesser paid players, while the guys at the top saw marginal increases. Another way of expressing that is to look at how much the salaries have grown for the highest paid players in the game since 2000-01 – it comes out to about a 1.2% annualized growth in salaries. League revenues have grown by something like 7.5% per year. The people who have been rewarded by the growth in hockey since 2000-01 with a bigger piece of the pie each year aren’t the guys who bring people to the rink and lift them out of their seats; they’re the guys who fill out the rosters in the NHL’s cartel and the guys who run the cartel.

So while I'm sure blowing up the cap system would loose the fetters holding back top end salaries, I'm not so sure the bulk of the NHLPA would fare as well. Which probably explains why the idea of decertification is only brought up as a point of leverage in collective bargaining situations. The Players' Association actually benefits the bulk of its members. In a completely free market for players, those that are easily replaceable and/or interchangeable wouldn't have the leverage to secure guaranteed contracts or other favourable contract provisions when negotiating as individuals. It is actually the limits on supply every free agency period that serve to drive up the price. Textbook economics.

To paraphrase completely mangle Benjamin Franklin, those who would give up security in exchange for free agency, might get what they ask for:

Be careful what you wish for

Ok, so for the bulk of NHL players, maybe this decertification thing isn't such a great idea compared to the status quo.

But who cares about the players? Even the losers under this scenario would still be winners in the overall scheme of things: getting payed hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to play a game. Why are more and more NHL media and fans so apparently keen on blowing it all up?

Well, one of reasons cited as a benefit of this type of system is a lack of lockouts. Sure enough, that is true. There has never, to my knowledge, been a lockout or strike in European soccer. Without a collective agreement, the relationship between NHL teams and their players would no longer be governed by labour laws, and instead fall under anti-trust laws in the U.S. and competetion laws in Canada. Under anti-trust laws, any collective act, such as a lockout or any rule openly or secretly restricting player's contract rights would open the door to charges of collusion and be liable for triple damages under US anti-trust legislation. So, by definition, no CBA, no lockouts.

Can't argue with that. But what I can argue with is everything else that would come with this.

As noted above, universal free agency would be great for the elite players. But lets think about what that actually means. Teams with the ability to commit to sky-high, multi-year contracts would accumulate the elite players. Small market teams that couldn't compete would either wind up with cast-offs and retreads, or would go broke trying to keep up. Over time the NHL would evolve one of two ways:

  1. A two-tier league of 8-12 high payroll, talent-heavy teams in a league rounded out with a bunch of low payroll also-rans, that occasionally got lucky with a young player or two that might have been overlooked or misjudged by scouts.
  2. A severely contracted league because small market teams that currently have trouble outdrawing professional bowling events would fare even worse as they lose their top talent, and eventually fold.

Speaking of bowling, I don't know why Mike Babcock's comments were such a big deal. Is it that hard to believe bowling could be more popular in parts of the US? I mean, when they have a tough split to make, it's actually MORE exciting:

Bowling for dollars

But back to the topic at hand. I don't know about you, but I'm not especially keen on Option 1, which is really the most likely. There seem to be no shortage of suckers, er, I mean stand-up business men, um, let's just go with rich guys that want to own sports teams. So while there might be some contraction, it would likely not be too drastic. This is fine with me, by the way. I've been a proponent of shedding 5-6 teams for a long time simply for the fact it would greatly improve the on-ice product.

The issue I have, however, is that the remaining teams would likely be very uneven in terms of talent level. If we point to European soccer as an example of labour peace and freedom of player movement, we should also notice that in every country there are a handful of teams at the top of the league tables each and every year.

Sure, you might get the occasional interloper breaking in to the top of the table for a season or two, or a new owner that comes in and is willing to buy his way there, but these are rare occasions. I'm really not interested in that type of league structure, to be honest.

Yes, yes, I understand that the fans of the lesser teams and lower tiers of European soccer are fervent and loyal, often even more so than NHL fans, apparently. But I don't care. To adapt NHL fans to that kind of league structure would take years. It requires a shift away from the existing North American sports culture, to say nothing of the need to change the structure of the league itself.

I don't think it's as simple as holding up European soccer as the shining example of how leagues consisting of stratified leagues, both through tiered divisional structures and stratification within the tiers themselves, can be wildly popular. Sure, there's no argument that every local soccer team in Europe has fervent supporters. But there's so many more differences in how competition is structured that it would take major upheaval, and years and years to implement in North America.

It's clearly a Utopian fantasy to expect that we could have open playoff for the Stanley Cup running concurrently with a league standings race for the Presidents' Trophy, which would be the equivalent of the FA Cup and the Premiership in the English Premier League, any time soon.

(On the bright side, if that ever happens, perhaps Canucks fans can finally take some pride in consecutive Presidents' Trophy wins. No, probably not. Sigh.)

But that's really what it boils down to for me: the structure of the competition. I prefer sports where teams have a fair shot based on their skill in assembling the team, combined with the skill displayed by the players on the field of play. I don't particularly appreciate the imbalance created by unequal resources.

I also don't appreciate excessive player movement. I used to follow baseball. I gave up on it not because of the World Series lost to a strike, but because of the player turnover. It's hard to maintain loyalty to a team when the players continually change from year to year.

Even though the Canucks would likely have the resources to be one of the handful of contending teams in a stratified league, I don't want the NHL to go there just based on principle. Having the same teams vying of the league championship for decades doesn't appeal to me. And if, God forbid, they weren't in the top tier, I don't think I could get that excited about a top 10 finish or for the occasional moral victory over a top flight team.

No need for me to worry, though. None of this will never come to pass. But if we're dreaming up Utopian scenarios anyway, I think I would actually prefer going the other way toward increased competition at the expense of player movement. Look at the Olympics, where player affiliation is (mostly) determined by country of birth and the intent is ostensibly to ensure a level playing field to maximize competition. So, if we're going to take the structure of an international sporting organization as a model, I guess I prefer the IOC over FIFA:

Not that the NHL is a stranger to corruption

But seriously, I think I have to *shudder* agree with a Hawks fan in all this:

RECENT GRAPHIC COMMENTS

 

C867930d1f1ba5cf2b078a93d3bd1a68
I'm not a hippie or on welfare. I don't live in Kits, wear Birkenstocks or own an umbrella. I've never been to the Capilano Suspension Bridge, but I'm sure it's very nice. I have a mayor, not a crack addict. I drink pale ale, not Blue. And I call it a cabin, not a cottage. I can proudly say my team's been to the Stanley Cup Final in the last 45 years. They may not have won, but at least they got there. I believe in sunshine, not haze; heat, not humidity. And that sushi is a healthy and tasty meal. A coho is a fish. A ski hill is a mountain. And the plural of leaf is leaves. Okay? Not leafs. Leaves! Vancouver is the country's third-largest city, certainly the most beautiful, and the best part of Canada! My name is petbugs and I am a Canucks fan! ... You can find me on Twitter @petbugs13 or send your hate mail to petbugs (at) gmail (dot) com but it better be funny or it's getting plonked.
Avatar
#1 fiShbone
December 20 2012, 11:45AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I love that 10 team scenario you layed out. why should my "fan dollars" go towards propping up southern american cities that dont really care about the sport and then just end up beating my team in the end. that drives me crazy. is it really fair that due to revenue sharing, the fans in vancouver helped pay the salary of BC product Scott Niedermayer who tjen.beat the Canucks in 2007 en rlute to winming the Stanley Cup for Anaheim fans who dont even sell out the bldg for $20 a ticket?!?!

ALSO, it would open the door for a 'premier league' in which hockey cities from all over the world could compete. imagine Vancouver vs Moscow on saturday night, while Toronto is in Stockholm and the Canadiens are hosting Prague... sounds amazing!

Avatar
#2 nanodummy
December 20 2012, 10:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Won't lie to you, the culture of 5-7 elite teams and 20 odd bottom feeders with mediocre talent isn't an alien culture to NHL fans born before the year 2000.

The original 6 had the habs, leafs, wings and hawks. 70's were the habs, bruins, flyers, hawks and islanders. 80's Oilers, islanders, habs, flyers. 90's were the wings, avs, devils, flyers.

One can argue some others belong there, but before the cap, the nhl was a league of dynasties and duds, with a few rich middlers, like the bruins or the rangers.

I do agree the cap has helped parity, but like Mr. Dellow has said, it's deflated talent value. I'd love to see a star player cap exemption in the NHL, allowing the more successful clubs to pay superstars what they're worth while maintaining the parity a cap brings.

Avatar
#3 nanodummy
December 20 2012, 10:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Won't lie to you, the culture of 5-7 elite teams and 20 odd bottom feeders with mediocre talent isn't an alien culture to NHL fans born before the year 2000.

The original 6 had the habs, leafs, wings and hawks. 70's were the habs, bruins, flyers, hawks and islanders. 80's Oilers, islanders, habs, flyers. 90's were the wings, avs, devils, flyers.

One can argue some others belong there, but before the cap, the nhl was a league of dynasties and duds, with a few rich middlers, like the bruins or the rangers.

I do agree the cap has helped parity, but like Mr. Dellow has said, it's deflated talent value. I'd love to see a star player cap exemption in the NHL, allowing the more successful clubs to pay superstars what they're worth while maintaining the parity a cap brings.

Avatar
#5 nanodummy
December 21 2012, 03:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Graphic Comments

European soccer is a different beast, however, in the sense that there are several top leagues that have the top teams, and the top talent.

Were soccer organized like the nhl, it would be the UEFA cup spread over a season. The talent in soccer is shared by the top 8-10 clubs in europe, shared by the top 5 or so leagues. You'd see the england division, the france division, the italy division, the spain division, the german division and so forth. Some divisions may contain many strong teams, some may only have one that runs roughshod over second tier talent and gets a playoff berth.

Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U's situation in the premiership would be like putting Philly, Pitsburgh and New Jersey of the atlantic division in the AHL. They'd kill the other teams. Put them against Spain and Germany's best clubs, different story.

In the last 40 years, the Habs, the Bruins, the Rangers, the Flyers and the Blackhawks have all been consistently successful teams with very few low ebbs, and when there were those teams came roaring back. They have almost always boasted top tier talent and have been playoff teams. These clubs, especially the canadiens, are the Man U's of the NHL.

The real issue, the one the player's raised early but has kind of fallen to the wayside, is revenue sharing. The NFL really does make a strong argument for cap plus heavy sharing equals parity.

Certainly having Tom Brady and Bill Belichuk together can put a team over the top into dynasty territory, but the cluster*explitive* that is the NFC is evidence that any given sunday has become more true these days.

Unfortunately, the reality of the NHL is not that of American football. They still focus too much on the gate and the owners can't see past their own bottomline to do what's good for the health of the game .

Avatar
#7 ChinookArch
December 22 2012, 08:32AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

For whatever reason the Nations have decided to have 2 sets of comment threads for this post? The same post exist on Numbers, with another set of commenters. Regardless the thread here is more interesting, so I'll dive in.

Put me down for me three - A proper revenue sharing model is what is needed. Putting the the NHL product (the game) ahead of the interests of vested parties, makes revenue sharing an excellent solution, that solves a lot of problems. In my estimation, revenue sharing is the primary reason that the NFL has become the most successful sports league in North America, and probably the world. In short, this league rewards it's fans with a great product where every fan believes that their team has a chance to win.

Comments are closed for this article.