mouser
Business of Hockey
I have some questions that I'm not sure I even understand how to phrase...
Prior to 2019-20, but post new CBA, there was a regular (annual?) issue of the players angry about how much they were putting in to escrow each year. Was that amount they put in then also making up a deficit in the HRR? If so, how was the cap continually climbing then? What was the players gripe about escrow pre-Covid?
The fundamental problem was that the CBA negotiated cap formula was set too high. The formula was based on an assumption that collectively the teams would spend right around the midpoint of the salary cap range, halfway between the floor and ceiling. In practice the teams collectively spent much closer to the cap ceiling. With many teams spending above the cap ceiling via the use of LTIR. This meant that the players were being paid more then 50% of HRR. This overage was then clawed back via Escrow.
This was addressed in the 2020 CBA so that the cap formula is dialed back a little, with the objective being to eliminate Escrow. However COVID hit and the 2019-20 Escrow wasn't enough to cover the overage. Then the players negotiated that they would receive 78% of their salaries in 2020-21 regardless of how much HRR the league generated. This further increased the Escrow Balance to where we are today, guaranteeing years of essentially a flat cap until the balance is paid off.
Does the new TV deal and/or expansion team factor in to HRR or bridging the escrow gap? Or is that all just money for the league/teams? How much non-HRR do owners/teams generate outside of selling their team?
The new TV deal will increase HRR, and thus shorten the amount of time it takes for the Escrow Balance to be paid back. The new Expansion team's revenue will be included in HRR, but they're also adding a full new roster of players to the league. So unless the Seattle team revenue is significantly above average they probably won't make difference in the Escrow Balance payback time--I doubt they'll be significantly above average.
Teams themselves generate little to no revenue that isn't considered HRR (Hockey Related Revenue). Owners may generate all sorts of revenue from other non-hockey businesses. Or even semi-rated businesses, such as True North Sports & Entertainment which owns the Winnipeg Jets as well as the arena they play in. Any Jets related events at the arena are HRR, any non-Jets events such as concerts is revenue the owners pocket but not HRR.
Assuming it's mostly business as usual moving forward, it would seem self destructive to limit the leagues growth for too long. It feels like at some point growth itself will bridge the gap more than any amount of their salaries the players pay in to escrow.
The Salary Cap doesn't limit or define the league's growth. Revenue defines the league's growth. What they're going to do is have the salary cap grow at a slower rate then revenue grows until the Escrow Balance is paid off.
The salary cap could be half the amount it is today and the NHL still wouldn't be competing for players. There's no other league that pays salaries on the level the NHL does. Even the KHL only pays their top few players salaries close to the NHL, everyone else on those teams is making less then they would in the NHL.