[deleted]
What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
21–30 of 33 posts
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#22This article seems poorly researched and poorly reasoned. Most observers are crediting the end of the lockout not to "the players realizing the owners were willing to scuttle the season", but instead to the players having voted to authorize the NHLPA to disclaim their representation of the players, effectively removing the players from the union, thereby opening the owners up to anti-trust lawsuits. Only once the NHL…
I disagree about the disclaimer of interest threat ending the lockout. If you look back to the previous two lockouts, you'll see that the NHLPA was bullied (or felt like it) and wanted that to end. The hiring of Donald Fehr, a known hard liner on the side of labor with a history of labor disputes. When Fehr was hired, there was going to be a lockout. Almost no negotiation was done prior to the actual lockout which is…
That's an inventive take on the owners demanding the players give up 15% of their profit stake on top of 10-35% cuts to salaries, contract rights, health benefits, and licensing rights.
The owners started with a ridiculous offer and maintained the same ridiculous offer through the negotiations. In the end, the players union was forced to fold because the players did not have the same financial resources as the owners did to weather a lost season. The players union was negotiating against itself the entire time; the owners got everything they wanted.
Donald Fehr's strategy all along was to drag his feet for as long as possible to not only get the best deal for the NHLPA but to, more importantly, frustrate the NHL and show them that a lockout is not an easy button for labor disputes.
If that was his goal, he failed, miserably. It also ignores the previous two NHL lockouts, which did not turn out so badly for the players union.
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
At-will employment wouldn't make sense in professional sports. Imagine a team that got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs. A player could give two weeks notice and then join a team that was still competing.
Contracts would still exist, as well as a few other rules, but for the most part there wouldn't be things like a salary cap. European club soccer is much closer to this model and it both creates really strong competition at the top end and a large spread between the top and bottom teams in a league. It is also very difficult to move from the bottom to the top without a huge amount of outside revenue. Pro sports leagu…
European club soccer is much closer to this model and it both creates really strong competition at the top end and a large spread between the top and bottom teams in a league. It is also very difficult to move from the bottom to the top without a huge amount of outside revenue.
No, it doesn't. The disparity in athlete talent and revenues between teams which make the Champions League and those which don't is greater than the disparity between say, the NFL and high school football. For the past decade, the winning teams of the Champions League and its feeder legs have all been one of the top 3 highest-spending teams in their respective leagues. There's simply no contest between, say, Manchester United and some random Irish club. In contrast, most of the professional American leagues reduce the talent disparity enough that either team could realistically win a match.
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#24What I find incredibly interesting about sports "unions" is that the unions use the threat of disbanding as a labour tactic. In every other industry, if the labour union even hinted at disbanding, the owners would ask "How can we help you along?" In North American sports leagues, the owners fight it.
You have to wonder exactly who is benefiting from Players Associations?
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#25Strikes would not happen if US sports leagues were based around free market principles rather than monopolies that set artificial restrictions on athletes salaries and conditions.
Your approach is more or less what happens in world soccer. Clubs like PSG or Manchester United essentially purchase their championships. Libertarianism doesn't make for very interesting games or teams. I think sports leagues could do with a little less privatization and a little more Green Bay.
And yet the Premier League is one of the most successful leagues in the world...
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#26What I find incredibly interesting about sports "unions" is that the unions use the threat of disbanding as a labour tactic. In every other industry, if the labour union even hinted at disbanding, the owners would ask "How can we help you along?" In North American sports leagues, the owners fight it. You have to wonder exactly who is benefiting from Players Associations?
That isn't incredibly interesting at all. The members of Players Associations are the best at what they do in the entire world. Leagues immediately suffer financially when these players aren't competing. Leagues are contractually obligated to fulfill agreements to various television networks, which is impossible if the best players are not competing. Likewise, teams make a large amount of money on the likenesses of players through advertising and merchandising.
Players Associations differ from most other unions because of artificial constructs like free agency, the draft, and the salary cap which are ultimately beneficial to both the players and the leagues. Beneficial, but illegal in the US. PAs collectively bargain with the leagues and give their right to sue for these things away in order to secure long term benefits agreements with sports leagues.
Disbanding the union in order to file an antitrust suit is the nuclear option, and the owners know it.
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Professional football's labor economics are radically different from other sports. They have virtually no development costs associated with talent - development of talent is largely done by universities (many tax supported). The NHL has a similar system, though. They draw on NCAA and international minor league talent, neither of which are paid for by the league. The NBA is similar, though I would argue that the out…
> The NHL has a similar system, though. They draw on NCAA and international minor league talent, neither of which are paid for by the league. Not at all. Most NHL talent development is done through an extensive farm system affiliated with and financially supported by their NHL teams, similar in some but not all respects to the MLB. Prospects pursuing the NCAA route vs junior leagues and the AHL are widely regarded as…
The big difference is that NFL players are typically drafted at the age of 22 after they've gone through college. NHL players are typically drafted at 18.
Very few of them go the NCAA route. Those that do go that route can't be paid in any way by NHL teams, so these players are just like their NFL brethren with the exception that NFL players are a known commodity coming out of the NCAA. NHL teams picked their players before they entered college, so it's a little bit of a crap-shoot whether or not they'll turn into an NHL player.
Those who don't go the NCAA route either play for the CHL or in Europe. When they turn 18, if they don't make their respective NHL teams, they typically join a teams AHL affiliate or maybe even their ECHL affiliate. Both of those lower tiers are supported by the NHL clubs.
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#28What I find incredibly interesting about sports "unions" is that the unions use the threat of disbanding as a labour tactic. In every other industry, if the labour union even hinted at disbanding, the owners would ask "How can we help you along?" In North American sports leagues, the owners fight it. You have to wonder exactly who is benefiting from Players Associations?
The collective bargaining agreements are prefered by the Owners because they limit free agency. Without such limitations the idea of an amateur draft falls apart - absent an agreement prospects could negotiate with any team because (IANAL) otherwise limiting their rights would be illegal.
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your approach is more or less what happens in world soccer. Clubs like PSG or Manchester United essentially purchase their championships. Libertarianism doesn't make for very interesting games or teams. I think sports leagues could do with a little less privatization and a little more Green Bay.
And yet the Premier League is one of the most successful leagues in the world...
Depending on one's definition of successful. Is the EPL the most popular league? Probably. Are the EPL teams the least profitable and most indebted? You bet they are! To the tune of 3.9 billion USD of debt across the league.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-c...
Re: What the NHL Lockout Reveals About Capital and Labor
#30[deleted]