 |
| |
| Home | Schedule | Statistics | Roster | Injury Report | Stars Links | NHL News & Links | Stars Forum | Stars on the Net | Archive | Mail |
It may be popular with some in the media and among many fans, but there are reasons some people think contraction is not the answer for what ails the National Hockey League.
Of course, leading the anti-contraction charge is NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman who helped push through part of the league's massive expansion in the 1990's.
"I think contraction's a dirty word," told an audience of NHL business partners earlier this year. "[Eliminating teams by contraction or relocation] violates an essential element of professional sports; you have a covenant with your fans."
And Bettman says contraction not only breaks a covenant with fans, but also fails to address the economic problems facing the league.
Mike Brehm, who writes for USA Today, is one who believes that it is too early to talk about contraction. He preaches patience.
"I don't think the NHL is ready for contraction. I don't think baseball is either. It's just a negotiating ploy. That said, I think the talent has been watered down somewhat because of all the expansion, but the hockey is still pretty good. Columbus is struggling because it's still an expansion team. Give it time," he said.
There are many people who agree that contraction may not provide the benefits suggested by proponents of shrinking the league, especially if that shrinkage comes as the result of some edict from the rest of the league.
Although Major League Baseball's proposed contraction of two teams never materialized, at least not yet, it did touch off a series of studies and debates on exactly what eliminating teams under edict from the league would entail and what kind of impact it might have.
We've used a lot of that material -- including a couple of studies out of Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania -- to look at the issue from an NHL perspective.
Skeptics point out that contraction proponents ignore a key element -- the costs of contraction. The NHL just can't come in and tell the Nashville Predators they no longer exist. Somebody paid a nice big expansion fee and invested a lot of money to make the Nashville Predators reality.
Chances are the league would have to buy the team and then fold it. And the costs will likely far exceed the market value of the doomed team.
A variety of economic studies were done after baseball proposed contracting two teams back in 2001. Estimations were the league would have had to pay the ownership of the Minnesota Twins, who were said to be one of the targets of contraction, between $150 million to $200 million in a contraction buy out. The Twins market value at the time was an estimated $98 million.
That's because there are several elements that could go into shutting down a team. A study by economists at the University of Pennsylvania said these were some possible additional costs that could arise in shutting down a team.
The question then becomes if the costs of contraction can be justified by gains in revenues for the remaining teams. In the case of the current NHL it seems highly unlikely because there isn't a lot of revenue sharing among the teams.
Eliminating, say, four teams would have little beneficial economic impact on the remaining 26 NHL teams, especially when you consider the cost of closing down four teams. That's because NHL teams rely so heavily on local revenues, especially gate receipts. And NHL teams do not share local revenues.
Eliminating the Nashville Predators, Atlanta Thrashers, Columbus Blue Jackets and Florida Panthers isn't going to significantly increase local revenues for the remaining 26 teams because none of those revenues were shared in the first place.
Contraction would increase the share of some national revenues that are shared, but the impact would be minimal because, unlike other major team sports, the NHL does not take in big money from national TV deals.
For example, take the $6 million each team gets from the various national TV contracts in both the U.S. and Canada. If you divide up the total revenue now shared by 30 teams among 26 teams, the remaining teams would get about an extra $923,000 per year. Cut six teams and it would mean an extra $1.5 million per year. Neither sum even covers the average salary of an NHL player.
Another key argument among contraction proponents is that reducing the number of teams will help stem skyrocketing salaries by reducing the competition for players and eliminating the fringe players who are overpaid because of the increase in the number of NHL level players.
Again, critics have doubts. The players most likely to lose their NHL jobs due to contraction are the lower paid players in the league. In other words many of those ousted from the league would fall below the average player salary ($1.79 million in 2002-03).
The long-term affects on salaries are debatable, but some think a contraction of four teams (the loss 92 roster spots) would have a minimal impact on player salaries over the long term.
And, some would argue, those fringe players weren't the the only thing fueling the inflationary trend in player pay over the past dozen years or so. Some say a handful of teams have helped drive up costs by handing out huge contracts to unrestricted free agents and other high end players. There is the arbitration issue. And loopholes in the current CBA as well. (More on that in a future report).
Eliminate, say, Nashville, Columbus, Atlanta and Florida and you are taking out four teams that paid $110 million in salaries combined last season. The New York Rangers, who alone forked out $79 million, are still around.
And contraction, under the current system, offers them no incentive to scale back their spending ways, or even keep them in check. In other words, you are contracting teams that can't afford to hand out big contracts anyway.
Another argument for contraction is that eliminating fringe players would elevate the level of play and make it more appealing to fans. Critics, again, have doubts. Using an example of eliminating four teams, on any given day during the regular season the number of players on active NHL rosters would drop by a total 92 players due to contraction.
Chances are most of those players would have been nightly candidates for the healthy scratch moniker, and four back up goaltenders would be out of a job as well. The probability of a dramatic rise in the level of play would be minimal, some would argue.
Proponents could argue for a more drastic contraction, but again critics would argue that the costs of that would probably exceed any potential gains.
And there's also the theory that contraction would enhance competitive balance by eliminating the weaker teams and distributing players to the other teams, with the remaining weaker teams getting the better players.
Critics say this goal may be unrealistic as well. The weak teams eliminated by contraction will be replaced by a new set of weak teams. Critics suggest people should remember the cyclical nature of sports. Today's weak teams just may be tomorrow's contenders.
Or as Bettman would say: "There are ups and downs and cycles in every franchise's performance, and each one of our franchises, under the right circumstances, can be successful."
And those who question the wisdom of contraction would argue that other options, including relocation to a potentially more viable market, should be explored before a team is eliminated.
Although contraction is trendy is some circles, critics say those who portray it as some kind of panacea for what ails the NHL are fooling themselves. There's still plenty of problems facing the NHL that contraction would not fix.
The debate over contraction is an interesting and controversial one. As is the case in most debates, each side has its points and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
But for now the debate over contraction is a moot point. Unless something dramatic happens, when the league and the players' union begin negotiating a new CBA there will be 30 NHL teams.
And the result of those negotiations will help set the course for the economic future of a league that has its share of problems. Problems, that if not fixed, could some day give contraction proponents what they want. A look at some of those problems starting in our next report.