It has begun (or ended).

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]There is no way a financially viable major sports league could exist without some form of salary contol. Baseball, Basketball, and Football all have it. The players' only chance to maintain their exorbitant salaries is to work within a system that has always provided them with an acceptable standard of living.[/Q]
Baseball has a salary cap? What world are you living on? Baseball has the weakest luxury tax possible, only barely pressed by after negotiations that nearly caused a strike, and absolutely nothing resembling a salary cap.

I for one think the players have been very generous. They proposed a 5% across the board paycut for all players, have you *ever* hear of a union doing that? Could you possibly imagine the baseball union accepting a 0.1% paycut? They'd take it to the Supreme Court for breach of contract before they'd consider losing a penny.

A cap is one idea, but its not the only way. Paycuts, limits on salary growth, no arbitration, maximum salaries, reduced minimum salaries - there are plenty of ways that you can push down the market without saying "you can only spend X and no more" - which is an idea that I don't like, it just seems so unnatural.

The players have proposed many different ideas and Bettman an the owners just say "salary cap or nothing". Give a few other cures 3 or 4 years and see how they work. Make an agreement, written or otherwise, that if in 3 or 4 years, salaries haven't decreased to 60% of revenue, or something, then a salary cap is agreed to be the only card on the negotiating table, but why they won't give anything else a shot is obnoxious and beyond me.

[KeithK]

The baseball luxury tax is weak, but it has probably done something to cap some of the teams at a level just under where the tax kicks in.  It certainly hasn't stopped the Yankees from spending, but anyone who thought it would was kidding himself.

While a 5% paycut for all players is a nice gesture, it really isn't anything substantial.  It probably wouldn't put any of the financially strapped teams in the black if they really are losing $500 million over 2 years (again, probably inflated) and it wouldn't do anything to change the structural problems with the league.

I agree there are probably other ways to change the system without a salary cap.  One of my favorites is a maximum individual salary, because this sets the price for top players and in effect for everyone underneath.  But it's probably hard to get the players to agree to this - they prefer having each guy negotiate his own salary without limits.

What exactly do you mean by "limits on salary growth"? Do you mean limits on the rate of increase for a single player during his career or for teams?

The owners have obviously looked at their financial situation and decided that the most straightforward way to get things in order is a salary cap tied to revenue.  So they're taking a very firm position that they want this.  If nothing else a cap is more certain to control costs than the other options that have been mentioned.  As for trying something else for 3 or 4 years, when you're losing lots of money every year it's got to be hard to try something just in case it works.

[DeltaOne81]

My "limits on salary growth" was something like, between contracts a player's salary can't increase more than X% (kinda like rent control ;-) ). I'm not saying I'm the one with all the ideas, I'm just saying they're out there.

If the players came out and said we'd take a 95% paycut and limit our individual salary growth to 2% per year, would the league take it? You bet your ass they would. So to sit there and say 'salary cap or nothing', is at the best disingenuous, and at the worst an obnoxious scheme designed to cause a lockout.

There's room for negotiations, so negotiate. The players have put several ideas on the board, while the management sits there and says, "nope, salary cap." I am all for competitiveness, I am all for parity, I am all for a level playing field, but I just don't like the salary cap unless its really necessary.

Yes, the league is losing money, but we all know the owners numbers are inflated. Baseball was the one that claimed that 29 out of 30 teams were losing money. Come on, yeah right. I'm sure the NHL is in a bad situation, but telling me that 3 years of increased restrictions (that just aren't a salaray cap) would put the league in the toilet, well, I just can't buy it.

5 or 6 medium to big name players have signed contracts this off-season at a significant cut from what they were getting previously. I don't have names, but I read this on an ESPN article. Some guys who were making $5, $6 million a year just signed 3 year, $9 million contracts. The weight of the salaries (relative to revenue) is collapsing on itself. Now I'm not proprosing they sit there and hope it keeps happening, but I am saying that its possible that very little will actually be necessary, so to sit there and demand no talks about anything other than a salary cap, the end-all-be-all of salary control, is no less than stupid and obnoxious.

[profudge]

Hey check out this article:  "NHL Fan's Guide to College Hockey"    at  http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/09/20_008649.php  I laughed at least a half dozen times!

[Josh '99]

Great commercial about the lockout from Nike Canada:

http://www.nike.com/canada/nikehockey/lockout/