-
Start of labor strife
First NHL labor strife, players go on strike over lack of deal and to increase playoff share. -
Period: to
Revenue expansion
Revenues have expanded from the $700m at the time of the strike, up to $3.3b in 2012 -
Owners lock out players
Owners lock the players out for the first time, causing the season to be shortened from 84 to 48 games. -
Negotiation
Agreement of 1994 extended from 1998 til 2004. -
Second lockout
The 1994 collective bargaining agreement expired on the 15th of September, and the owners locked the players out. This lockout lasted 310 days, and cost the NHL the entire season. -
CBA negotiated
After the 310 day lockout, a new CBA was ratified, with a salary cap that maxed out the player's share at 57% of hockey related revenue in addition to a flat 24% rollback of all salaries prior to the lockout. -
Period: to
Explosive revenue growth
At the time of the 2004 lockout, the league's revenue was around $2b annually, and by the end of the 2011-2012 season it was up to $3.3b. This created an issue since the players were to receive 57% of hockey related revenue, causing a strain on small market teams. -
Third lockout
The arguments:
NHL commissioner says that 2/3 of the teams lost money last year, and the players need to take a much lower % of the revenue and a flat salary rollback. The players want to increase revenue sharing between teams, and are willing to take a % cut but not a rollback -
My opinion
According to Forbes, three teams made a combined $171m profit, and the rest of the league lost a combined $44m. This makes me think that there needs to be more revenue sharing between the teams
Additonally, I would like to think that 57% of the revenue going to players is a bit too much. The players shoulder none of the business risk, and I can't really see why they deserve much more than 50-52%.
