Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    http://business.time.com/2012/12/19/hockeys-wealth-redistribution-problem-whats-really-behind-the-nhl-lockout/

    "This has long been a problem, of course, for all major sport leagues. But we've known for a while that the way mature owners and strong commissioners have to deal with this imbalance is to share revenues between teams. Practically, this allows all teams to be competitive, ensuring a consistent and popular product. Philosophically, this recognizes the were-all-in-this-together aspect of professional sports leagues, one of the more curious economic constructs in history. Its not a coincidence that the most successful North American sports league also has the most rational approach to revenue sharing. Some 60% of the NFL $11 billion revenue pie is shared, which is why tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can compete with big bad New York or Chicago. The other two Big Three leagues arent quite as egalitarian but have improved their models in recent years: MLB teams share nearly a third of local TV revenue, while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations).

    The NHL, meanwhile, has been sharing 4.5% of its $3.3 billion revenue (with not much more on the table in current talks.)

    So greed is the issue, alright:  owners greed, specifically owners in larger markets who refuse to recognize that sports leagues are in many ways socialist enterprises, in which the needs of the many fat cats should outweigh the few obese cats. At least if the obese cats want to keep purring."

     

    So what is the excuse as to why the richer owners don't have to revenue share with small/mid-market teams like the NBA, MLB and NFL ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    I've brought this up before.  It's clearly a huge issue.  With this system, Phoenix won't be helped unless Toronto is helped more.  It's ridiculous.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

     

    We're discussing everything under the sun here....and nobody wants to weigh in on this thread?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    Hard to agree/disagree with the article without knowing all of the detail around current revenue sources. 

    Correct me if I am wrong, but the present NHL TV deal is as follows:

    10 years/ $2B or $200M/year or $6.7M/year/team (30 teams)

    The NFL deal is as follows:

    9 years/ $27B or $3B/year or $93.8M/year/team (32 teams)

    I don't have all of the details, but with the NHL operating an 82 game schedule to the 16 games in the NFL, seems the launching point is completely different for the two leagues.  NHL clubs clearly have a higher reliance on their local gate/media deals to generate revenue.

    Also worth noting:

    Current NBA deal nets approx. $930M/year or $31M/year/team

    Current MLB deal nets approx. $1.55B/year or $51.7M/year/team.

    Scott Gomez's current contract pays him more than the Canadiens share of the National TV contract.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from LordByron77. Show LordByron77's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    I have VERY litttle knowledge of the business side of the NHL. My minor knowledge says that if the teams in larger markets make more money, the smaller maket teams make less. Common sense??

    If I were the owner of say the Toronto Maple Leafs (multiple owners?) or the Boston Bruins (single owner?) I would seriously be upset that I would have to "hand out" millions of dollars to teams in smaller markets. I understand the relationship for the smaller teams to survive, but should that money come from my pocket? Clearly the NHL community is too large. With teams in smaller markets trying to expand the NHL, many are failing. I put this on Bettman. Not thinking ahead if any markets will fail, then take money from players because the "pie" isn't big enough for the owners to survive. Poor business decisions are always a factor. The players should realize this and allow the owners to have more money. (I believe they have agreed to this), however what will happen the next time the CBA has expired?

    IMO, ultimatly there needs to be less teams taking away from the game? I don't know but this Lockout, for the 3rd time has become almost as regular as my bowel movements.

    Time to cancel the whole season, take a month off, sit down and hash it out. For a LONG term. Come up with some percentage increase or agreement of contracts that will benefit the NHL and the Players as the economy fluctuates

    First time commenting on this subject, I apoligize if offended anyone

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    If small market owners aren't making an issue then we would we care about it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: HockeysWealth Redistribution Problem:

    In response to stan17's comment:

    If small market owners aren't making an issue then we would we care about it.


    But Stan do the small market owners have a say over the NHL Board of Govenors ?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Hockey’s Wealth Redistribution Problem:

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stan17's comment:

    If small market owners aren't making an issue then we would we care about it.



    But Stan do the small market owners have a say over the NHL Board of Govenors ?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Maybe they do maybe they don't I have no idea. Not really a concern for me though.  

     

Share