A matter of trust: a quick fix for the NHL's Collective Bargaining Agreement might seem simple, but the players, led by Bob Goodenow, are wary of the owners' stance

Hockey Digest, Sept-Oct, 2004 by Dejan Kovacevic

FOR ALL ITS INTRICACIES, THE issue that could derail the 2004-05 NHL season would appear to be strikingly simple at its core.

There is an enormous pile of money on a table, high enough to touch the ceiling. Seated on one side are NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the owners who employ him. Opposite them are NHL Players Association chief executive Bob Goodenow and the union he represents. all concerned agree that the money should be divided equitably, with the owners making a reasonable profit and the players compensated properly as the lifeblood of the game.

Fairly elementary stuff, right?

One would think so.

Somebody takes a hand, sticks it in the middle of the pile and shoves half to one side, half to the other. Everyone goes home happy, the Sept. 15 expiration date for the Collective Bargaining Agreement is rendered moot, the inevitable owners' lockout averted. Not a single faceoff missed, not a single fan miffed.

This all might actually happen, too, except that the core issue is not what it appears to be. It is not the separation of money. Rather, it is an intense distrust.

The players do not accept any of the owners' two primary positions related to the CBA talks:

* They do not accept that the NHL collected 82 billion in revenue in 2002-03, the last full season for which the league conducted an audit That figure, if accurate, would mean that 75% of all money went toward player salaries. In the NBA, the most comparable professional sport, players take 58% of all revenue while individual teams operate under a salary cap. Bettman points to an audit conducted by a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman that showed teams lost a combined $273 million in 2002-03 and that 19 of the 30 teams lost money. Goodenow has dismissed that audit because the NHL finances it and because the NHLPA did not participate in the research.

* They do not accept that there is a need for a salary cap, even though the NFL and NBA have enjoyed dented popularity and parity since they implemented theirs. Bettman insists that he does not want a cap but rather "salary control," although few interpret that to mean anything other than a cap. The NHL's original proposal to the NHLPA, made last autumn, is believed to Have included a 831 million cap on each team, a figure that would reduce the average team payroll by roughly $15 million. The NHLPA has proposed a luxury tax system similar to that used in Major League Baseball Each side considers the other's stance a non-starter in negotiations.

* They do not accept that teams need to have their payrolls limited to help competitive balance. And they certainly did not have a difficult time making their point after Tampa Bay and Calgary, teams in the bottom hall of the league's payroll list, reached the Stanley Cup final and went at it for seven games.

Ancillary issues could be negotiated, of course, and there already has been something approaching agreement on matters such as shortening the season from 82 to 72 games. But the owners declared after a set of talks in late May that no minor matters will be discussed or settled until a new economic structure is in place.

Both sides could simply glare at each other to see which blinks first, but that could go on indefinitely, jeopardizing the whole 2004-05 season should a stalemate extend into January. And who knows how much longer it could go from there?

The only certainty is that the cost would be colossal.

For one, it would exact an enormous toll financially on both sides. Owners of many teams already have laid off employees in expectation of a work stoppage and, despite an emergency fund of $300 million that has been amassed by the NHL it is possible that one or more franchises carrying a significant debt load will not survive an extended period of zero revenue, Players accustomed to multimillion-dollar lifestyles and those who make more ordinary wages also will have the benefit of reserves accumulated by the NHLPA, but their patience surely will be put to the test.

Another epic price to pay doubtless will be the long-term ramifications of shutting down the game, especially in the United States. Even Major League Baseball, the American pastime, continues to feel the repercussions of the 1994 strike that canceled the World Series. An NHL work stoppage would not have close to the civic impact, of course, but that is part of the problem. Hockey's television ratings have dipped to all-time lows in the U.S., and the NHL recently had a harsh reminder of its plunging status by signing a national broadcast contract with NBC in which it receives no guaranteed money. There is no telling how ranch farther off the general radar the sport could fall if it just disappears for a few months or more. And make no mistake: This is a cost the owners and players will bear together. Less exposure, less popularity spells less money for all parties, whether it be through salaries or endorsements.

There is the actual hockey, too. Think the owners in Tampa Bay or Calgary are eager to see next season shut down? How about Vancouver, where an exciting team has translated into a packed building nightly? Or Nashville, which finally was able to show its fan base the excitement of playoff participation? Or even Pittsburgh, which had the NHL's worst record and lowest attendance but bas parlayed the good feeling generated by a 12-5-3 finish into a ticket-selling surge this summer? It will not take much time lost to overall momentum on the ice or at the gate. The players have to think about this, too, from team and individual perspectives. How many players in their late 30s or early 40s will walk away because of a long stoppage? Have we seen the last of Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Chris Chelios, Scott Stevens, Dominik Hasek and others? Even among players not that old, the question surely will be asked: Is it worth it to give up a year in the prime of a career to maintain a union stance?