Hockey fans lamenting the latest NHL work stoppage can perhaps take solace in the likelihood that it might not last as long as the one started eight years ago.
That dispute was about economic structure, the implementation of a salary cap. This dispute, if both sides are to be believed, is about plain economics — a divide of revenue that was $3.1 billion last season.
Players had been collecting 57 percent on the last collective bargaining agreement. The last NHL offer called for owners to collect a range from 51-53 percent.
“This is a battle for hockey revenue, and if it's just about that, there shouldn't be a long stoppage,” said Larry Silverman, the Pirates' baseball legal counsel from 2002-11. “Long stoppages occur when there are fundamental structural differences between parties.”
Silverman said that was the case during the 2011 NBA lockout, which cost that league 16 regular-season games per team and featured infighting among the union and owners.
A contrast was the 2011 NFL lockout, which was about a lot of things but came down to a split of North American's sports biggest overall economic pie, said Lynn Lashbrook, president of Portland-based Sports Management Worldwide.
The backdrop of a struggling U.S. economy and “politics” has perhaps influenced the NHL dispute, Lashbrook said.
“Look at the Chicago teachers strike, the (lockout) of NFL referees, and the backdrop of owners, generally, being very strong men,” Lashbrook said. “There is kind of a collision going on now that is more universal than even two years ago. My read is that owners think, ‘Enough's enough.' And employees, or players, think, ‘Yeah, for us, too.' ”
Rob Rossi is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.