DEVIL'S ADVOCATE POST
Except everyone focuses only when owners when they make money, but cast a blind eye when the owners are losing significantly more money than making over a long term. "They can take it". The NHL lost how much money again this season alone? Many other owners were barely breaking even, but some orgs were definitely in the black.
There are a handful of ultra rich that are rich off government handouts, but not all of them are.
Not to mention, platform owners make the most money. That's why Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft are ahead and also have the cash flow to buy out the popular applications out there. The NHL owners are the platform. The players are the pieces that go on top. That's why the funds first go to support the platform (owners) first before players.
I don't disagree with you. I'm playing devil's advocate.
I'm just saying a point is far stronger if it takes into account arguments on both sides before concluding. Ignoring opposing arguments before concluding leads to a weak point.
But players generally have no possibility to incur a loss from regular operations. This is a regular risk for all NHL org owners.
True, but at what point do you have to consider that a consumer refusing to understand and comprehend something they can realistically understand and comprehend with a little bit of work s being negligent? That's how you get mass crazies with pseudo science and conspiracy stuff. Categorical lines are blending at an unprecedented rate.
If we are confused at some of the special treatment towards athletes, I'd parallel that to religion (past and present). In our modern culture, things like sports and politics have taken the space where religion used to. IMO, the concessions religion used to receive for the common good are now concessions given to sports and politics for the common good.
I get where you're coming from, but I think the semantic confusion should be on the word "fair" and not "value".
Look at what is requested to bring things to "fair". Think how easily people pay a premium for something that is popular and whether they think it's "fair" or if they got "scammed". Look how dramatic people are these days. It's basically all in or nothing. The middle ground barely exists now.
Value has always suppose to have been a subjective concept. Not all people derive value from the exact same thing. But fairness was supposed to have an air of objectivity to it. Yes, fair is what two people determine is fair, but at the same time, two people essentially must agree it's fair. Few people truly agree on or understand value. They just take it at "face value". They don't care about value, just accessibility.