Players can have a free market system

Status
Not open for further replies.

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
What is the point of a contract if its not a guarantee. People say why should they have guaranteed contracts as if that is some special favour they are granted. Why even include the word guaranteed in front of the word contract. Isnt it redundant?

If there is a perfectly free market, and a team signs a player to a contract for 3 years, it is guaranteed for 3 years. Thats why they signed the contract. YOu dont need to mention the guaranteed part. Its implicit.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
me2 said:
Ditch arbitration and let teams and players decide their market values. Let each team and each player compete in there own little free market. What NYR wants to pay shouldn't affect what Bill Wirtz wants to pay. If the players don't like the teams offer they can withdraw services.

If the current marketplace was rolled back 24%, there would be no more overpaid RFA's. Arbitration now is a friend to the owners, not their enemy. It ensures that NYR wont spend more for their RFAs than Calgary would. The goal for owners rather than losing arbitration would be better served by ensuring all players are forced into arbitration.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
BlackRedGold said:
The PA does not use the term "free market". Instead they use the term marketplace. There is a difference. What the PA wants is for players, at some point in their career, to have their salary determined by the highest bidder.

The PA must know that it is more advantageous to have a CBA like the old one where any market can win. If a totally free market for player services were to occur it is very likely that small markets would be unable to exist in the NHL due to an inability to be anything more then a farm club to wealthy markets. That is not in the PA's best interests.

But if the owners continue with campaign to crush the PA then the PA might decide that losing some less viable markets is more attractive then fighting the owners for the next five years.

The players would have the right to free agency at an even earlier age to allow the "marketplace" to determine their worth. They'd just rather have the old player freindly markteplace than the new owner freindly marketplace.

The NHL existed before the NHLPA. If the players decertify we would return to a similar situation. Anyone remember what share to the revenues players made back then?

Some other points.

The WHA held a draft. Do they have a current CBA negotiated with a union or players association? The draft would be legal until challenged. I'm sure some player would, but that takes time and in the meantime if an owner freindly union formed and signed a CBA the challenger would be out of luck.

Same thing for a league wide cap.

Make no mistake. If decertification is the PA's exit strategy, they will not like the results. Their wages are completely out of whack with what they would earn on a truly free marketplace.
 

SENSible1*

Guest
thinkwild said:
What is the point of a contract if its not a guarantee. People say why should they have guaranteed contracts as if that is some special favour they are granted. Why even include the word guaranteed in front of the word contract. Isnt it redundant?

If there is a perfectly free market, and a team signs a player to a contract for 3 years, it is guaranteed for 3 years. Thats why they signed the contract. YOu dont need to mention the guaranteed part. Its implicit.


Tell me you aren't this ignorant of the myriad ways contracts can be constructed with out clauses for employer or employee?

Contract does not equal guaranteed.
 

YellHockey*

Guest
me2 said:
Ditch arbitration and let teams and players decide their market values. Let each team and each player compete in there own little free market.

How can you determine a market value with one team?

Arbitration is a compromise between a player making his services available to all teams and the player only being able to make his services available to one team.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Epsilon said:
Not only are you incorrect (Microsoft has been considered a monopoly for some time now, which in and of itself isn't illegal, but they engaged in antitrust violations which a monopoly cannot do), but the fact that the microsoft case has nothing to do with labour is immaterial. There are labour-related violations of the antitrust laws.

You brought up microsoft. If it's immaterial with respect to labor which is the issue in this thread, why bring it up?


Again you miss the point completely. And European companies are not taken into account by US courts when determining violations of US antitrust law.

European companies can be sued in US courts for antitrust just as US companies such as microsoft can be used in European courts. If the NHL is a monopoly it would be in court before the EU just like microsoft.

The underlying purpose of US antitrust law is to protect consumers and competitors. The burden of proof for the complainant is to show harm. Would a non-union NHL with a salary cap and presumably lower, more stable, ticket prices harm the consumers? Is it harmful to competitors if the NHL paid lower salaries? Lower NHL payrolls actually make other pro leagues more competitive and increase the potential for other leagues to arise. The NHL would have to have the power to fix prices or exclude competition throughout the industry to be considered a monopoly and then there would have to be proof of harm to make it actionable in court.

Antitrust with respect to restraint of trade can only be applied if it can be shown there are agreements between competitors to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices which includes the price of labor. If the NHL isn't making agreements with any competing leagues when it sets its salary structure, there's no case. One could make an argument that the individual NHL franchises are competitors depending on the language of their franchising agreement, but if there's a problem there, the NHL would anticipate it and reorganize to preclude any such challenges.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,815
1,468
Ottawa
Reorganize as a not-for-profit company? :)

I have always thought as sports teams as our teams. When Melnyk bought the Sens, there was a welcome ceremony where the mayor and celebs were here, tongue-in-cheek stating that the fans will allow him to join the teams as its owner. But fans really felt that way about the team. It was our cities team. Now I think of it as Melnyks business.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Buffaloed said:
You brought up microsoft. If it's immaterial with respect to labor which is the issue in this thread, why bring it up?

It's a case comparison. A monopolistic organization violated antitrust law. The Sherman Act covers a wide range of violations.

European companies can be sued in US courts for antitrust just as US companies such as microsoft can be used in European courts. If the NHL is a monopoly it would be in court before the EU just like microsoft.

Totally off the mark. Microsoft runs afoul of European antitrust law because they do business in Europe. That comparison makes no sense in this case. The NHLPA is certified in North America, and all its clients work for North American corporations.

The underlying purpose of US antitrust law is to protect consumers and competitors. The burden of proof for the complainant is to show harm. Would a non-union NHL with a salary cap and presumably lower, more stable, ticket prices harm the consumers? Is it harmful to competitors if the NHL paid lower salaries? Lower NHL payrolls actually make other pro leagues more competitive and increase the potential for other leagues to arise. The NHL would have to have the power to fix prices or exclude competition throughout the industry to be considered a monopoly and then there would have to be proof of harm to make it actionable in court.

Antitrust with respect to restraint of trade can only be applied if it can be shown there are agreements between competitors to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices which includes the price of labor. If the NHL isn't making agreements with any competing leagues when it sets its salary structure, there's no case. One could make an argument that the individual NHL franchises are competitors depending on the language of their franchising agreement, but if there's a problem there, the NHL would anticipate it and reorganize to preclude any such challenges.

The NHL teams are competitors, and there's simply no way to get around that. I can't imagine any court ruling otherwise.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
Buffaloed said:
There's more bad than good in a free market for the vast majority of the NHLPA. In a true free market the NHL is competing with the SEL, RSL and other Euro leagues to sign players, rather than against itself.

Interesting point. To emphasize that line of thinking, I'm reminded that when MLB players were first granted free agency rights (circa 1975), the owners, led by notorious skinflint Charlie O'Finley, proposed that all players immediately be granted free agency status at once. In his over-exuberance over winning free agency rights for his union members, Marvin Miller nearly agreed to that proposal, but caught himself and refused. For if EVERY PLAYER were a free agent AT THE SAME TIME, the true market value of players would immediately be determined, and a lot of players would lose a lot of $$$ (or lose their NHL jobs completely). Hence, a staggered approach, whereby a select number of players would go on the open market annually.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Epsilon said:
The NHL teams are competitors, and there's simply no way to get around that. I can't imagine any court ruling otherwise.

They're competitors in the same sense that McDonald's franchises compete with one another. They're owner-operated franchises governed by their franchise agreement. Independent competitors do not pay franchise fees, subject every contract for approval, make mandatory contributions to various funds, agree to submit to league bylaws, or even allow the league to negotiate a CBA. It isn't 30 teams negotiating 30 CBA's, it's one NHL. The NHL isn't a trade association where there's a great deal of independence. Teams can do nothing significant without league approval.

Look at it from another angle. There's never been any question from any legal expert that the NHL can impose its last offer (including a hard cap) under a legal impasse. The only issue there is whether the NHL can legally declare an impasse. Decertification by the NHLPA would grant the NHL the same right to an even greater extent as they would no longer be bound by the terms of that last offer due to the dissolution of the players' bargaining unit.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Buffaloed said:
They're competitors in the same sense that McDonald's franchises compete with one another. They're owner-operated franchises governed by their franchise agreement. Independent competitors do not pay franchise fees, subject every contract for approval, make mandatory contributions to various funds, agree to submit to league bylaws, or even allow the league to negotiate a CBA. It isn't 30 teams negotiating 30 CBA's, it's one NHL. The NHL isn't a trade association where there's a great deal of independence. Teams can do nothing significant without league approval.

Look at it from another angle. There's never been any question from any legal expert that the NHL can impose its last offer (including a hard cap) under a legal impasse. The only issue there is whether the NHL can legally declare an impasse. Decertification by the NHLPA would grant the NHL the same right to an even greater extent as they would no longer be bound by the terms of that last offer due to the dissolution of the players' bargaining unit.

When teams block franchise relocations or new expansions due to "territorial rights" you know that they are competing against each other. They compete for both business and for employees.

As for your second point, the NHL can implement a CBA under an unheld impasse becuase the union still exists, and then has the option of going on strike. If they decertify, no union exists, and so labour law no longer supercedes antitrust law.
 

Buffaloed

webmaster
Feb 27, 2002
43,324
23,584
Niagara Falls
Epsilon said:
When teams block franchise relocations or new expansions due to "territorial rights" you know that they are competing against each other. They compete for both business and for employees.

Many franchise agreements include territorial rights. Where it's not defined, franchises have sued and prevailed against franchisors for breach of good faith when another franchise is permitted to locate too close. Iowa has a specific law that allows franchisees the right to sue the parent company if their sales decline when a franchise is opened nearby.

As for your second point, the NHL can implement a CBA under an unheld impasse becuase the union still exists, and then has the option of going on strike. If they decertify, no union exists, and so labour law no longer supercedes antitrust law.

Good point, I overlooked that. But I don't think the burden of proving the NHL is a monopoly or proving restraint of trade can be met in any event.
 

Epsilon

#basta
Oct 26, 2002
48,464
369
South Cackalacky
Buffaloed said:
Good point, I overlooked that. But I don't think the burden of proving the NHL is a monopoly or proving restraint of trade can be met in any event.

Proving the NHL a monopoly would probably not be difficult at all. In fact in the 1950s, congressional hearings were undertaken to determine if baseball's antitrust exemption should be formally recognized (since it was granted in a court ruling rather than through legislation), and furthermore, whether such an exemption should be extended to each major professional sports league (since they were all viewed as monopolies and hence could run afoul of antitrust law). Best remembered for a hilarious, rambling testimonial by Casey Stengl, the hearings ultimately went nowhere and the idea died before even reaching the senate floor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->