As you most likely know all too well, the NHL has been locked out for nearly three months now. On September 15th, the league's previous Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL and the NHL Players' Association (NHLPA) expired, locking out the players until a new deal could be reached. Some fans have followed the details scrupulously, and others have just been tweeting and complaining about the lack of their favorite sport. If you aren't aware of the situation at hand, I'll do my best to break it down in the most understandable terms.
When you kept hearing about the 50-50 split that was desired, it was in reference to the way money is divided between the players and the owners in terms of
hockey-related revenue. What exactly hockey-related revenue is classified as, I cannot be sure. But the important thing is, according to sources, the two sides have agreed on what HRR is defined as. In the league's last working CBA that expired in September, the players earned a 57-43 share of HRR. Owners wanted to bring the players' share down from 57 percent to 46 percent in the new CBA, but it seems that the sides have agreed in principle on a 50-50 split, after all. That agreement finally came last week during a three-day negotiating session that ended abruptly when the NHL turned down a counter-proposal from the NHLPA.
The "Make Whole" Provision was another topic that was agreed on in principle, according to reporters who were at the hotel in New York City last week where the owners and players were negotiating. In a nutshell, the "Make Whole" provision is the piece of the agreement that ensures existing player salaries are "made whole" despite the reduction of the percentage of revenue that goes to player salaries. Originally, the NHL said they would pay $211 million over the course of the new CBA for the Make Whole provision. The players originally demanded that the league pay $389 million. It was a huge sticking point for a while, but in the league's most recent offer last week, they moved significantly — exactly half way, in fact — toward the players' demands with an offer to pay $300 million of the Make Whole provision. The NHLPA accepted that particular part of the proposal.
So, to recap... last week's offer from the NHL included a 50-50 split in revenue (which the NHLPA agrees to) and a $300 million commitment from the league on the Make Whole provision (which the NHLPA also agrees to). So what are the remaining sticking points here? After all, to reiterate the message of the previous two paragraphs,
the two sides have essentially agreed on the money numbers in this deal.
One of the remaining issues is the length of the new CBA term. The NHL is demanding a 10-year Collective Bargaining Agreement with a mutual option between the two sides to opt out of that agreement after the first eight years. The players, on the other hand, insist on an eight-year agreement with an option to opt out after the first six years. Even if you're challenged with numbers, you can see that the different here is only two years. Sources say that most players don't care all that much about this matter, and that they would accept the league's offer if they had to. Donald Fehr, however — the NHLPA's leader, in the same role as Bill Daly plays for the owners — seems to care more than the players do. He is one of the reasons that the sides haven't agreed on this issue yet. The primary reason why the owners want 10 years is because of their willingness to pay $300 million in Make Whole money. If the CBA is shorter than that, then the owners will not really achieve a true 50-50 split of HRR — the $300 million would significantly skew that percentage.
Another huge sticking point is maximum player contract lengths, which Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly refers to as "the hill [the NHL is] willing to die on." The league proposes a five-year maximum for new player contracts, with seven years being the maximum if the player is re-signing with his current team. The owners want to do away with ridiculously long contract situations (see: Ilya Kovalchuk, Rick Dipietro) that, ironically enough, they brought upon themselves. Ultimately, they want to institute a policy to prevent those few owners who give the huge contracts from ruining the system. The players, however, feel just as strongly as the league does in the opposite direction. They believe that five years is too short a limit, and their counter was an eight-year minimum. If one side or the other doesn't move at all, this thing could go up in flames from an issue that isn't even money-related.
The last major sticking point is the matter of player contract buyouts, which the NHLPA is trying to allow in the early stages of a new CBA. The catch, though, is that the NHLPA wants those contracts to be eligible for buyout
without that payment counting against the salary cap. For obvious reasons, the league is against this notion as well. The owners claim that, since they are already shelling out $300 million for the proposed Make Whole provision, they cannot have more money being exchanged outside of the system (i.e. the system = the salary cap). Ultimately, this seems to be another issue that Donald Fehr is creating unjustly. The Make Whole provision is entirely designed to help the players transition, financially, from one CBA to the next to cope with a reduction in their share of the money. There really isn't a need for another transitional remedy like this when it comes to getting the players more money.
So what's the summary? Ultimately, if I can put this in the simplest terms possible, the NHL and the NHLPA are absurdly close to an agreement on the core issues. It's rather aggravating that it hasn't been settled yet. Here are a few concluding bullet points through which I will try to summarize my thoughts:
• If the players themselves put the NHL's most recent proposal to a vote, it is more than likely that the players would accept the offer. They want to get back on the ice.
• Donald Fehr, the skipper of the NHLPA, is trying to get the best deal possible for his players. Kudos for that, but there comes a time when you must realize that you've haggled as much as you'll be able to.
• Even though the league made a decent offer, I still find myself questioning whether or not they are truly committed to fixing things. Did you know that the league (the owners) still make money from their TV contracts even when the league is locked out?
• It's time for both sides to push hard for an agreement, and the reality is that the players will get screwed. The owners hold the cards. Donald Fehr, Steve Fehr and the rest of the NHLPA need to realize that and accept the NHL's most recent offer (which the league has attached a "take it or leave it" label to). It's manageable, at worst.
The only thing I'm certain of at this point is that I miss hockey... a lot. It is a shame that such rich men are unable to divide such huge sums of money in a satisfiable way. And further, it is a shame that the two sides still cannot reach an agreement even after they've agreed on those core money splits.
Remember who brings the money in. Remember who brought this sport back to prominence. Remember your fans when you see your product spiral into destruction on the heels of another lost season.
