No idea where this came from. I said the NHL is an industry, not a business entity. As for the rest of that sentance, what the hell were you reading?
If we consider just the sporting apect, then an arbitrary limitation on the resources that can be devoted to player salaries is no different than any of the other arbitrary rules governing competition.
Now you are duplicitous. By definiton, you can't talk about just the sporting aspect if you are going to talk about resources devoted to players salaries.
If you consider just the business aspect, then you could to an extent consider it socialist. But if the primary motivation for the operation of a franchise is to make money as a business, there is strong evidence suggesting that the salary cap in those best interests. No hockey team could make any money without opponents to play against nor a championship to play for, so membership in a league is vital to the success of any franchise. Furthermore, whatever is in the best interests of the league to which the franchise belongs is also in the best interests of the franchise. Evidence suggests that parity is a benefit to the league, and that the salary cap promotes parity. Ergo, the salary cap appears to be beneficial to the franchises in the NHL, from a business perspective. Current revenue trends support that conclusion.
While 'being in your best interests' does not mean that it isn't socialist, you can't totally separate the game aspect from the business either. So the cap must be considered in the complete terms. An arbitrary rule governing competition in a sporting league, which does not appear to impact the earning power of member franchises, nor restrict in any way outside of league competition the freedom of those franchises to 'reap their fruits'. It's similar in many ways to any other franchise-based business. There's a million different burger joints out there, but if you want to own a McDonald's (and all the associated benefits that come with the franchise) you have to abide by their rules. There's a lot of hockey leagues out there, but if you want to be in the NHL, you have to abide by their rules.
In regards to the legality of the contract, it is true that the contract as written is most likely within the rules as stated. But we are only assuming there is no unwritten agreement and only assuming that both parties entered the deal in good faith that all the terms would be fulfilled as written. If either of those assumptions is false, then one or both of the parties is guilty of violating the terms of the CBA.
Furthermore, the section of the CBA I quoted earlier seems a clear attempt to preserve the integrity of the CBA against exactly these types of violations of the 'spirit'. We are basically a judgement call from an abritrator away from NJ and/or Kovy being guilty of circumvention even without proof of any violations, as the CBA at least had the forsight to try and protect itself from these types of loopholes.