Cui bono? KHL issues response to RIHF proposal
From the moment of its inception, the Kontinental Hockey League has established itself as an equal partner with the National Hockey League in matters of player transfers. The Memorandum of Understanding signed two years ago to respect existing players’ contracts in each other’s leagues has been impeccably observed by both parties. This was a considerable achievement by the KHL, involving a fundamental change in its relationship with the NHL and preventing an exodus to North America of players who had existing contracts with KHL clubs. Since the signing of the above agreement there has not been a single instance of a player breaking the terms of his contract to pursue his career overseas, whereas in 2008 alone, due to the absence of such an agreement, Russian clubs lost the services of more than two dozen players who were nonetheless under contract. The relationship between the KHL and NHL is unique; nothing of its kind exists among any of the European leagues. The existing agreement acknowledges the equal validity of contracts in both leagues.
The proposal put forward by the Russian Ice Hockey Federation (RIHF) and European hockey leagues on behalf of the NHL would be a backward step. The agreement would grant the NHL the right to sign any European player – even one with an existing contract - for a set fee. Such an agreement would amount to an acceptance of NHL hegemony over European hockey and would undermine the validity of players’ contracts in the European hockey leagues. For the KHL such a plan is clearly unacceptable, and furthermore, in view of the existing contractual relationship with the NHL, the League sees no reason to even discuss the proposal.
In claiming that the NHL proposal offers financial benefits, and that the absence of such a plan has led to "missed profits," the RIHF is blatantly manipulating the figures. Had a similar proposal been accepted a decade ago, Russia may well have received to date a sum of 25 million USD, as around one hundred adult players have indeed left the country. However, there has also been the obvious and easily-documented expenditure by Russian clubs on the salaries of these players and their preparation for the Russian national team for the World Championships and Olympic Games. According to conservative estimates, over the five years of the KHL’s existence, this adds up to 43 billion (!) rubles, or in the RIHF’s preferred currency, more than $1.3 billion.
Indeed the real problem facing Russian hockey is the flood of juniors (i.e. players aged 18 or under who have not signed professional contract with any KHL club) to minor leagues in North America. These players find themselves on junior contracts and under the jurisdiction of the RIHF, yet the hockey schools who had nurtured these athletes until their departure do not receive any compensation, and KHL clubs are faced with a depleted pool of talented young players to add to their rosters.
One would imagine that this is the kind of problem which should be the object of the RIHF’s undivided attention, and the subject of that organization’s discussions with the IIHF and the Canadian and US hockey federations, under whose jurisdictions the North America minor leagues operate.
No player would sign a contract with a fixed out clause sum as it would restrict their movement. From a club perspective it would turn into a competition of who offered the lowest fixed sum(or no sum), turning the whole process counterproductive.
