Why is the NHL becoming so anti-capitalist? The purchase and sale of NHL hockey clubs should be something that the free market determines.
The argument that a "national footprint" in the US is important to give the league legitimacy is just wrong and misinformed. It has probably harmed the NHL to have expansion franchises in the US south. The constant ownership and attendance problems are damaging to the league. Further it has created considerable tension between the fans in real hockey markets and the league.
Cut the floor, install a soft cap, and leave the market for NHL franchises open and free of head office interference and then we will have a perfect market outcome. If that means 3 franchises in the golden horseshoe, 26 teams, and still no franchise in Winnipeg, then that's what it is and the NHL has to deal with it. US national footprint be damned.
I see what you're saying, but what if the shoe was on the other foot? I've read some statements regarding the sale of the Oilers to Houston years ago, and the NHL stepped in to save that franchise as well. If, theoretically, the Senators experienced the same situation as the Thrashers/Coyotes, would you still have the same opinion? Would you also proclaim, "The Ottawa market be damned if they can't get ownership!" as well?
I think many people are missing the big picture. The NHL knows it needs to expand to more markets in order to not only grow the game, but to generate more revenue. The more revenue generated, the more money there is to go around any and all teams in the league. Without expanding the market, as any business owner will tell you, then the business does not grow. The NHL is ranked last in the U.S in terms of popularity. Would you rather the NHL stay where they are, or try to gain more popularity? How would one go about moving up the proverbial "popularity" chain? Expansion to populous cities with no hockey team is the answer. Give Bettman credit where credit is due; He is trying to make the game more relevant to everyone in the world. It's either that or the NHL market share shrinks to the other 3 major sports, and eventually fades away into obscurity.
Can anyone name a large, successful, company who has not expanded beyond its initial brand? Google, Microsoft, Apple, Ford, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, etc? All of these companies started small and expanded to something much greater than the sum of its parts. If you can't find/name a company who has been successful
because they chose not to expand, then there's your reason.
The last paragraph is intriguing. I listened to a national sports commentator a few weeks ago regarding the state of the 4 national sports with relation to their CBA's. He stated that the leagues with the weakest player unions had the best disparity (it was a different word that I can't think of now!) between teams. In other words, it's not one team winning the championship every year. Hockey, he stated, had the best disparity compared to any other league, and that it made the game more accessible and exciting to the causal fan since the new CBA was implemented. Going away from the CBA could be a damaging blow to the league. I thought it was an interesting analysis.
In conclusion, I believe that expanding teams to areas where hockey is not seen as popular by traditional standards is the smart, and correct, move by the NHL. The more teams expand, the more people are exposed to the game, the more people want to play the game, and better talent is brought into the league itself. Teams like Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Dallas, San Jose, Columbus, Phoenix, etc, are the beginning of a new era in hockey.