http://sports-law.blogspot.Loss of NHL games with Gary Bettman as Commissioner
Back in October, I tweeted about loss of regular season games by commissioner by percent and in the aggregate. With the 2012-13 NHL season on the brink (as Nathaniel Grow explained this morning), I figured it might be helpful to see some updated math.
Here are my calculations for NHL commissioner Gary Bettman:
Key Take Away:
While context matters and while blame should be shared with owners and players, it's hard to escape these numbers when compared to other leagues' commissioners: Far more games have been lost under Bettman's watch than have been lost under commissioners of the NFL, NBA and MLB.
In fact, no games have been lost under Roger Goodell’s leadership (6 years on the job), and just 2% of games have been lost under the leadership of David Stern (28 years on the job) and Bud Selig (20 years on the job). Those commissioners can certainly be criticized for many things, but they have succeeded in ensuring that scheduled games are played. Games being played is obviously not only a concern for owners and players - the two groups who have the authority to resolve a labor dispute. It's also one for those who have no formal say at the bargaining table: fans who buy tickets, networks that enter into broadcasting contracts to televise games, and apparel stores and restaurants that enter into business contracts assuming they will generate business from games being played.
If Bettman's games lost percent rises to 13%, it will be a percent of games much higher than all of the other commissioners combined -- and it's already higher as it is.
NHL Decertification Talk Heats Up
Following up on Michael McCann's post from Monday, talk of a potential decertification of the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) heated up this week. After the NHL owners rejected a new union proposal on Wednesday, the players have increasingly appeared willing to dissolve their union in order to pursue antitrust litigation against the league (see this report by James Mirtle). In fact, on Thursday, Buffalo Sabres goalie Ryan Miller publicly endorsed the decertification strategy, in the process calling out the NHL's outside legal counsel, the Proskauer Rose firm, by name.
Given the increased possibility that NHL players will dissolve their union, several Sports Law Blog contributors have been interviewed in the past few days to discuss the procedural steps involved in a potential decertification of the NHLPA, as well as the strategy's likely impact. In particular, Gabe Feldman answered some decertification questions for CBC, and Michael McCann discussed the issues with Canadian Business magazine, while I spoke to the Globe and Mail. Here's a excerpt of my discussion:
com/
Back in October, I tweeted about loss of regular season games by commissioner by percent and in the aggregate. With the 2012-13 NHL season on the brink (as Nathaniel Grow explained this morning), I figured it might be helpful to see some updated math.
Here are my calculations for NHL commissioner Gary Bettman:
NHL Season Regular S Games Games Lost
1992-93 384* 0
1994-93 1092
0
1994-95 1092
468
1995-96 1066
0
1996-97 1066 0
1997-98 1066 0
1998-99 1107 0
1999-00 1148 0
2000-01 1230 0
2001-02 1230 0
2002-03 1230 0
2003-04 1230 0
2004-05 1230 1230
2005-06 1230 0
2006-07 1230
0
2007-08 1230 0
2008-09 1230 0
2009-10 1230 0
2011-12 1230 0
Total: 21,551 1698
= 7.9% of games cancelled through 2011-12 season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-13 1230 To date: 422 games cancelled = 9.3% (this assumes remainder
of 12-13 season is saved)
If 12-13 season
lost: 12.9%
So if the NHL and NHLPA strike a deal to save the 2012-13 season and no
more games are lost, then 9.3% of games under Bettman's nearly 20 years
as commissioner would have been cancelled. But if the season is
cancelled, then the number jumps to 12.9% of games. That's a lot of
games lost -- for owners, players and the numerous businesses (souvenir
stores, restaurants/bar) dependent on NHL games being played.
Explanatory Notes and Assumptions
- NHL used 84-game regular season in 92-93, 93-94, and 94-95 seasons; in other seasons, 82-game regular season used.
- NHL had 24 franchises in 92-93, 26 franchises from 93-94 to 97-98; 27 franchises in 98-99; 28 franchises in 99-00; and 30 franchises from 00-01 to present.
- Bettman became commissioner on Feb. 1, 1993. By that date most of the 92-93 season had been played. The Boston Bruins, for instance, had played 52 of their 84 regular season games. Other teams had played about the same, give or take a game. Assuming the 24 franchises had 32 games left, then Bettman was commissioner for 384 games in the 92-93 season (768 remaining games to be played by teams, divided by two since each game has two teams).
Context and Caveats
- It's important to stress that loss of games has many explanations, and not just who is the person occupying the commissioner’s job. Clearly, the wishes of individual franchise owners and their level of unity in bargaining matter. The willingness and ability of players’ associations to organize players and reasonably compromise with the league also matter.
- Evaluating a commissioner invites numerous metrics, including growth of revenue and popularity of sport. Most would say Bettman has done well on those and other fronts, though expansion into southern U.S. states remains a questionable business strategy.
Key Take Away:
While context matters and while blame should be shared with owners and players, it's hard to escape these numbers when compared to other leagues' commissioners: Far more games have been lost under Bettman's watch than have been lost under commissioners of the NFL, NBA and MLB.
In fact, no games have been lost under Roger Goodell’s leadership (6 years on the job), and just 2% of games have been lost under the leadership of David Stern (28 years on the job) and Bud Selig (20 years on the job). Those commissioners can certainly be criticized for many things, but they have succeeded in ensuring that scheduled games are played. Games being played is obviously not only a concern for owners and players - the two groups who have the authority to resolve a labor dispute. It's also one for those who have no formal say at the bargaining table: fans who buy tickets, networks that enter into broadcasting contracts to televise games, and apparel stores and restaurants that enter into business contracts assuming they will generate business from games being played.
If Bettman's games lost percent rises to 13%, it will be a percent of games much higher than all of the other commissioners combined -- and it's already higher as it is.
NHL Decertification Talk Heats Up
Following up on Michael McCann's post from Monday, talk of a potential decertification of the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) heated up this week. After the NHL owners rejected a new union proposal on Wednesday, the players have increasingly appeared willing to dissolve their union in order to pursue antitrust litigation against the league (see this report by James Mirtle). In fact, on Thursday, Buffalo Sabres goalie Ryan Miller publicly endorsed the decertification strategy, in the process calling out the NHL's outside legal counsel, the Proskauer Rose firm, by name.
Given the increased possibility that NHL players will dissolve their union, several Sports Law Blog contributors have been interviewed in the past few days to discuss the procedural steps involved in a potential decertification of the NHLPA, as well as the strategy's likely impact. In particular, Gabe Feldman answered some decertification questions for CBC, and Michael McCann discussed the issues with Canadian Business magazine, while I spoke to the Globe and Mail. Here's a excerpt of my discussion:
Let’s start with the basics. Why might decertification make sense for NHL players here?
A. There’s kind of a benefit and a drawback. There are some protections you get under labour law when you’re in a bargaining situation like this. By having a union, the players under U.S. labour law get protection against the owners committing certain unfair labour practices.
So they get some benefits out of the unionization, but the downside is you can’t then file an antitrust lawsuit against the ownership while you’re still engaged in that collective bargaining relationship.
The trade off is do we want to have union protections or would we rather dissolve the union and pursue antitrust remedies. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You have to pick.
From the perspective of why is it a good thing to do now: The main benefit is probably leverage... If we file an antitrust lawsuit, it adds uncertainty for the owners. If this lockout gets declared to be a violation of U.S. antitrust law then the players’ damages are going to be tripled.
I thought I saw one estimate that the players were losing something like $10-million per day. If you use that as a ballpark, if they’ve missed 70 days, you’re talking about $700-million times three; that’s a huge number potentially. There’s leverage for the players. The No. 1 thing they would shoot for presumably would be to end the lockout [using a preliminary injunction]. Even if they don’t get that, long term, they still have that threat of the antitrust legislation and the triple damages hanging over ownership.
No comments:
Post a Comment