Member 23807
Guest
Here are some thoughts I put together regarding "free market system" that the NHLPA has insisted on from the beginning. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.
Link To Article
Link To Article
mooseOAK said:By free market system I think that what the players mean is that they want a system where the richest owners are free to spend as much as they can and to hell with everyone else.
mooseOAK said:By free market system I think that what the players mean is that they want a system where the richest owners are free to spend as much as they can and to hell with everyone else.
snuffelapagus said:Also add to your article that a true "Free Market System" would be comprised solely of "free agents" under an "at will" employment scenario. Therefore there would be no guaranteed contracts, qualifying offers with built in raises, unilateral salary arbitration and on the flipside no restricted free agency or other convoluted free agency schema. There would be no entry draft, no waiver draft or entry level salary system either.
The NHLPA's insistence on the notion that the NHL or any other professional sports league is a free market is nothing short of absurd.
Unfortunately, your opinion is the one dominating the economic landscape. The 'law of supply and demand' is, unfortunately for you, immatuble and not subject to human manipulation no matter how cleve we think ourselves. You can have the opinion that 'supply and demand' is a poor way for society's to organize themselves. Then again, I can have the opinion that the sky is purple.IMO any "Free Market" system without regulation is inherently flawed as the market offers little protection to any of the involved parties and simply follows the ethos of "supply and demand"; a very trecherous credo upon which to build a sustainable and viable paradigm for a micro or macro society.
Gurj said:Haven't read your article yet, but would not a definition of a "Free Market System" include contracts not being guaranteed?
joechip said:Unfortunately, your opinion is the one dominating the economic landscape. The 'law of supply and demand' is, unfortunately for you, immatuble and not subject to human manipulation no matter how cleve we think ourselves. You can have the opinion that 'supply and demand' is a poor way for society's to organize themselves. Then again, I can have the opinion that the sky is purple.
That doesn't make it true.
A true Free Market solution would be a win-win situation for all involved. It is also a fantasy, as both the US and Canada have draconian labor/corporate laws that stifle both innovation and competition.
Ta,
http://people.uleth.ca/~rockerbie/SportsText.pdfIt is realistic to think of a professional sports league as a number of teams operating as a cartel. Each team is a monopolist within its geographically protected area, which then colludes with other teams to form a market wide monopoly, or cartel. To insure that the cartel does not fall apart, the league rations the available league market by controlling the growth of new expansion teams and the entry of players into the league (a draft system).
-page 158,
The Economics of Professional Sports
Duane W. Rockerbie
Department of Economics
University of Lethbridge
Kodiak said:First of all, no one in the union has ever said that they want a total free market. If that were true, the union could decertify and that would be the end of the CBA. What the players want is some semblance of a free market where they are free to go to the highest bidder without restriction.
Kodiak said:Second, in talking about a total free market system, you are only mentioning the facts that would benefit the owners. A contract for employment at will can be terminated by either party at any time. So under a true free market, a player could be fired, but a player could also quit at any time (even in the middle of a season) and work for another team. Or a player could threaten to quit unless he gets a raise. The current system of guaranteed "personal services" contracts is advantageous to both sides because they both get security out of the deal.
Kodiak said:Third, in your Procter & Gamble analogy, you fail to mention one crucial point. Procter & Gamble owns all of those companies. It bought or acquired them through various mergers. The NHL does not own any of the separate teams. In fact, the teams have to pay in to the NHL to be admitted. The best that they can do is say that they own the names and the logos. The better analogy would be to think of the NHL as a regulatory commission appointed by an industry of separate and financially distinct companies.
misterjaggers said:http://people.uleth.ca/~rockerbie/SportsText.pdf
Professional sports leagues don't come close to fitting the definition of a freely competitive market.
PJStyles said:Here are some thoughts I put together regarding "free market system" that the NHLPA has insisted on from the beginning. Any feedback on this would be appreciated.
Link To Article
joechip said:Thi is true except in the event of individual contracts having any of these stipulations. Also, things like waiver and entry draft systems would be effective internally but subject to competition from other leagues (Sherman Anti-Trust law is anathema to a Free-Market solution).
...
A true Free Market solution would be a win-win situation for all involved. It is also a fantasy, as both the US and Canada have draconian labor/corporate laws that stifle both innovation and competition.
PJStyles said:That's the premise for the article I wrote. The players idea of a free market is flawed. They treat the NHL as if it's the only place they can make a living. The NHL is just one employer of hockey players, yet the players feel they are entitled to have teams bid whatever they want irrespective of how the NHL does as a whole. That is extremely flawed in my humble opinion.
I agree to an extent. Do not forget that the players have guaranteed contracts but also have arbitration on their side under the current CBA. The owners do not have that right. Therefore,they are clearly not on equal grounds.
I'm in favour of maintaining guaranteed contracts with equal arbitration rights for both parties.
Valid point, but the analogy still holds as far as the NHLPA treating the NHL as if it's the only market on earth that employs hockey players. NHL players have the right to play where ever they desire. They can play in Europe as many are now.
snuffelapagus said:At the risk of getting off topic, I feel that my questioning of running a any society based SOLELY on the law of supply and demand being folly is not dominant in the current economic landscape (see Bush Administration, degregulation, etc). I stated that the law of supply and demand is treacherous because it is often manipulated (see Enron) and further there is no accounting for the negative repercussions of this law. I would love to continue this discussion at length, but feel it would be best for this thread if it is done through PM.
To keep on topic, in your opinion, jochip do feel that a free market system would be the solution to the NHL's needs? If so, how do you feel that the fans would benefit from such a system?
misterjaggers said:http://people.uleth.ca/~rockerbie/SportsText.pdf
Professional sports leagues don't come close to fitting the definition of a freely competitive market.