Who has said anything like that?
The reality is the owners are the ones saying they're still losing tons of money so they need to reduce their primary costs, players salaries. This is in spite of making massive amounts more revenue than in 2004.
Judging by the players proposal, they would be more than happy to stick with the current CBA. Instead the owners want to greatly rollback players percentage of hockey related revenue while also reducing the amount of money that is considered hockey related revenue.
Players aren't "in it for the fans." But they want to play hockey and they want their fair share of the money for bringing in billions of dollars for the owners.
I know people make the argument that millions of dollars they currently make is enough, but that's not really a realistic assessment. They are elite level talent and have a job that takes a high physical toll and risk on the their health. Yes they make great money doing it, but because $1 million is great money compared to what most of us make here, that doesn't mean they should just let owners take the rest. If you had an extremely specialized skill that generated billions of dollars in revenue, would you be okay with the owner of the company getting most of the revenue for your skill? Especially if your job was high risk?
Sorry, this ones more on ownership.
Agreed. It would be silly to suggest the players or owners are not greedy. To be successful, you probably need to develop some form of greed. But it is clear the owners are looking for more money, I don't see that yet from the players. In fact, didn't their proposal reduce the amount of money currently coming their way? They are just trying to keep as much money as possible. They aren't trying to get more.
I have no problem with professional athletes making as much as they do. There are very, very, very few people in the world capable of doing what the do. If you look at almost any other profession, the very top people in their field are making millions. Fact is, the players generate billions in revenues, therefore, they should get a good chunk of that money....question is, how much?
I think the system needs to change. The current proposal from the league is fine, it will help the struggling franchises, but what happens when revenues increase dramatically again (largely driven by the good market teams)....increasing the cap floor again and putting those teams in trouble. The problem with the linkage to league revenues is that it assumes as league revenues grow, each teams' revenues grow at the same rate....which is definately not true. Some might say the solution to that would be to eliminate the floor, but that has 2 problems: 1) players won't like it because less money for them, but more importantly, 2) removes partity which the league was trying to get to as well.
The only solution that makes sense to me is revenue sharing, anything other solution that would help the smaller market teams would simply mean large chunks of money would come out of the players pockets and going into the pockets of the rich teams.
The richest teams in the league are much richer these days than they were 7 years ago, becuase their revenues grew a lot. The poor teams are in the same spot they were 7 years ago because the league revenues grew dramatically, but their didn't. If revenue was shared, there wouldn't be this problem.
This topic is locked
