I just checked using the NHLs 5% growth estimate, and my understanding of the "make whole" provision. Their math isn't consistent, or they're attempting some chicanery.
If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?
Details per: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570
On one hand, when setting the cap, the league is estimating flat revenues for '12-13. $3.303B. In the "Make whole" provision they say 5% growth.
Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.)
But if starting year 1 revenue at $3.303B, the shortfalls they estimate would actually be year 2 and 3, and the year 1 shortfall would be $231M. Over six years, the deal falls short by $63M. ($442M lost in first 3 years, $379M gained in the last 3.)
And the actual share percentages, assuming everything over $1.883B is used to repay the shortfalls, are: 57, 54.3, 51.7, 49.2, 46.9, and 44.7. If the deal was extended for the 7th year, the total shortfall would be recouped, and the actual player's share in year 7 would be 48.6%.
Of course, actual growth probably won't be 5% (certainly not a consistent 5% each year), so the numbers would vary.
In any case, ~$400M is a big chunk of change, and I would expect the players to want that separate from their share in future years. Doing so would raise the average share% to around 51.5-52%.
edit: Important distinction: The shortfalls listed are from the $1.883B in compensation the players made last season; not from already-signed contracts for next year and beyond.
Edited by Buppy, 17 October 2012 - 06:01 PM.