It’s clear that the (apparent/pending?) official “cancellation” of the long-dead NHL season has had the same effect as the old line about ‘hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, because it feels so good to stop’.
The average person doesn’t generally care about labor disputes at the best of times — unless the dispute impacts them personally.
But even fewer people are impacted — or much care — it seems, when wealthy athletes take on even-wealthier owners.
This said, our commentary of last fall (October-November) touched on many of the possible reasons why, at the time, the players seemed to be losing the public relations battle. The reasons were — and are — many.
The irony is, of course, that professional hockey players by and large are the most “liked” of all professional athletes. They are closest to the fans, most accessible to the media, and so on.
This dispute has killed most, if not all, of that goodwill. But in truth, the erosion started many years ago.
Do fans support the owners? Of course not. No one cheers for billionaires or asks for their autograph, Donald Trump aside. Forget the logic of either side’s position in terms of “cost certainty” versus a free-market system. Does anyone “care” about NHL owners, other than their ability to put teams on the ice so that those who are interested can watch?
Let’s be clear: The owners have made their share of mistakes, from an optics perspective. Telling the players in a meeting a recently that they (the players) are essentially “just” employees while spouting in public about wanting a “partnership” didn’t fool anyone, especially the players.
But that said, here are some things to consider as the season is over, but the dispute rages on.
- Why are NHL superstars — including a number who earn millions of dollars a year and have for many years — taking away the jobs of players who make a few thousand dollars a year playing in the United Hockey League, the “lowest” level of professional hockey in North America? What does the average hockey fan think about that, one wonders?
- How many times have fans heard a player ‘spokesman’ say, “Hey, the owners caused this problem”? The ‘problem’ they refer to created many more jobs for players, at salaries that are astronomical by the standards of the average person.
- For those media player-apologists who say, “well fans are just envious. Those fans who say they’d play in the NHL for less aren’t good enough to play in the NHL. Of course they’d play for less.” And these apologists add, when asked why doctors make so little compared with pro athletes, for example, “Well, no one pays to watch doctors operate”. Interesting. So the fact that people are willing to pay to watch an entertainer means the entertainer should make millions upon millions? (Even if they don’t show up for work, like Alonzo Mourning?) Odd logic. What about the “value” of someone who can save a life, versus the “entertainer”?
- One prominent player spoke out a while ago with an unveiled warning for any “replacement” player that would play next season in the “new” NHL. Hmmm. The fact that hundreds of NHL’ers have flocked to Europe and have taken jobs away from individuals who certainly needed them much more to “feed their families” is acceptable, but a “replacement” player struggling to make ends meet who would love to play in the NHL for one day should feel as though he is doing something unethical? And should fear for his physical safety? And this while NHL’ers play in Europe, the AHL, CHL and UHL, not to mention senior hockey in Canada?
- The classiest player in the history of pro hockey, Jean Beliveau, a thoughtful man respected throughout the hockey world, says the league needs a cap to survive, that he doesn’t support the players in this dispute. A prominent member of the player’s bargaining team refuted Beliveau’s claims. Who would you believe?
- What have other ex-players had to say? Well, Phil Esposito says for the first time he does not support the players. Nor does Darryl Sittler, the ex-Maple Lea Hall-of-Famer. Patrick Roy said some time back that the league needs a cap to ensure the viability of franchises throughout the league. The Players Association no longer has a hold on those individuals.
- One of the NHL players who is now playing in the United Hockey League was quoted as saying the NHL doesn’t care about small market teams. In the same breath, the same individual reportedly told reporters, according to various accounts, that the league should get rid of a number of teams. Interesting concept. Except, from an NHLPA perspective, that approach would take out say, 100 jobs from the association. Yet the star players are supposedly fighting for — and speak for — the “little guy” who may never play in the league again?
- Here is a question that should be mulled over. Do we expect owners to save the game, to save the season because they love hockey? In reality, these are individual business leaders, or large corporations. Whether they like or love the game is not the point. They are involved in hockey as an investment, or as a sideline, perhaps, maybe even as a bit of a “toy”. But they expect to make a profit, not lose money constantly. The players are the ones who have a “passion” for the game, and many believe it is up to them to “save” the game.
- Those who own NHL franchises, each and every owner, made their fortunes in businesses totally unrelated to professional hockey. They could walk away from hockey today and still make millions in their original chosen fields. How many players will be able to maintain their hockey income in other walks of life? So the fans may wonder, who really needs whom more?
- If we ever do reach a point where “replacement” players are signed to play in the NHL, will fans pay to watch? Likely, yes. Fans have spoken loudly throughout this protracted dispute. They are tired of mega-million dollar athletes in an industry that can’t afford it. If the owners sign players with drive, with some flair, with a passion to play because they really love playing and not for the money, people absolutely will show up.
- Have players offered to share in the losses the owners may experience in the future? Would that not make them true “partners”?
One thing is abundantly clear. The players prefer to make far, far less in other leagues right now, and even perhaps under a “new” NHL at some point in the future, than they would under a salary cap they feel would be imposed upon them against their will. It is an admirable stance — if one believes it is one based on some kind of ethical principle. As a matter of practical decision-making, it is harder for the average person to understand.
Some observers still seem baffled by the fact that there is no uproar in Canada because there is no hockey.
Well, perhaps the majority of fans held their noses these past 10 years, while salaries rose ridiculously and average-ability pro players took home millions. Fans held their noses because they like watching hockey, long ago having established loyalties to certain teams or players.
But slowly, they held in their anger, their frustration, not because they envy the players, but simply because the players’ expectations and sense of entitlement has grown absurdly out of the realm of what is acceptable to many “average” people.
For their part, the owners have finally, like an overly permissive parent, finally put their foot down. The players don’t like it.
The fans are saying “too bad”.
Those same fans hold the final key to all this, and the players, more than the owners, will have to win back the fans, if they ever get the chance.
