It's kind of a three-front conflict though, in that you'll never find a way to make the big markets, the small markets, and the PA happy. The NHL needs teems in a lot of markets that may "suck" now if it hopes to grow the game and become a media powerhouse as opposed to a gate-driven league. That's why, as much as it may suck for myself and for other Canadians, and as much as it may feel unfair to us, there will only ever be so many NHL teams in Canada. The NHL feels that it will gain more by creating new demand in the United States (and in the process, more lucrative TV programs) than by accommodating existing demand in Canada, where yes, there may be more demand for hockey tickets than the supply currently allows, but where there is a less potential for growing TV ratings, Centre Ice buys, and merchandise sales by adding new teams.
The problem in emerging American markets in the Sunbelt, West, and lower-midwest, however, is that fans will never give a **** about these teams if they are not supported by the league, especially given that hockey lacks a strong cultural presence once you get more than a handful of hours from the Canadian border. To support these teams, you need to devise strategies that will attract quality ownership groups and that will ensure that fans there are provided with a quality product, win or lose. The best way to ensure that these these teams have stable ownership and that they are at least somewhat competitive is to guarantee that as long as the team is managed competently from a financial and hockey perspective, any owner will be offered a guaranteed return on their investment and any fan will be offered a quality product so long as the NHL feels that the market in question is part of the league's growth strategy. That's the difference between having teams owned by Paul Allen, Ted Turner, or Mark Cuban and teams owned by Boots Del Baggio or ASG. That's why the NHL needs the level of revenue sharing that the NBA and the NFL. The problem is that revenue is so concentrated among a few clubs that their owners or the shareholders of their parent companies do not want to make the sort of sacrifices needed to maintain a stable league. Unable to win revenue sharing from the big markets, the small markets have to settle for driving labour costs down to survive, which you either limit via a salary floor or you let these teams pay peanuts, attract mediocre talent, and continue to be ignored by people who have not yet be sold on hockey and probably never will be if the product is **** in their market. The other problem with having a salary cap linked to aggregate league revenue and limited revenue sharing (relative to the other NA sports leagues) is that it creates these perverse incentives. Why does a team like Florida want its payroll costs driven by $1,000,000 by the extra revenue gained by a deep Toronto playoff run? My best guess would be that they sure as **** don't.
