Revenue Sharing

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm sorry to answer your question with another question, but I think it's the same arguement as why would you want to have social services in the community (Medicaid or Welfare for example)? You want these services for the benefit of the overall community, because if the poor gets too poor, it hurts you through crime or other matters.

There have been some good explanations as to the benefits of revenue sharing, and I find it incredibly hard to side with the owners due to their lack of committment to this issue. I think it'd be a start, and with a luxury tax with bite, it could provide the revenue sharing without teams agreeing on fixed percentages. I made a proposal in the past week that offered to tax all teams for players on payroll who make over the league average. It had a balanced plan of distribution and showed the benefits (per team). A good luxury tax system, maybe not the ones you see in the NBA or MLB, but a good system could balance out the league with no immediate need for a hard cap.

As previously mentioned, revenue sharing just spreads out the losses across the league, and if more teams were feeling the losses, you would see spending curbed as a result. It all depends on the system. The NHL and NHLPA are both thinking inside the box, and not even entertaining the thought to think outside the box. By placing general summaries on terms like "hard cap" or "luxury tax" and refusing to agree to anything with those names.

Not that he wants it, but it wouldn't hurt Snider in the least if 2-6 teams disappeared. It actually might make him more profitable as the National TV money (what little there is) would be split among less teams.


I'm also not talking about revenue sharing via a luxury tax as that is a completely different issue.

 

[CarlRacki]

Not that he wants it, but it wouldn't hurt Snider in the least if 2-6 teams disappeared. It actually might make him more profitable as the National TV money (what little there is) would be split among less teams.

Actually, it probably would hurt him, depending which teams we're talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the owners have to re-pay some expansion fees if recently added teams are contracted?
Also, while places like Atlanta, Phoenix and even Columbus (15th largest city in U.S.) may not be a "hockey" towns, they're attractive markets for networks and advertisers. As such, you'd be wrong to assume you'd get the same TV money without those teams in the league.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Actually, it probably would hurt him, depending which teams we're talking about. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the owners have to re-pay some expansion fees if recently added teams are contracted?
Also, while places like Atlanta, Phoenix and even Columbus (15th largest city in U.S.) may not be a "hockey" towns, they're attractive markets for networks and advertisers. As such, you'd be wrong to assume you'd get the same TV money without those teams in the league.

Not sure about repaying expansion fees, but those new "attractive" markets haven't done anything to get the NHL a better TV deal. The recently signed television contract is far worse than it used to be.

 

[CarlRacki]

Not sure about repaying expansion fees, but those new "attractive" markets haven't done anything to get the NHL a better TV deal. The recently signed television contract is far worse than it used to be.

Yes, the deal is very bad. But the question is would it be even worse minus three top 15 (U.S.) markets? I suspect it would. I can't imagine a network saying "We'll give you a better deal, but only if you exclude some really big cities."

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Yes, the deal is very bad. But the question is would it be even worse minus three top 15 (U.S.) markets? I suspect it would. I can't imagine a network saying "We'll give you a better deal, but only if you exclude some really big cities."

The deal with NBC couldn't possibly be any worse, as they are not guaranteed any $$$$$$. It's a profit-sharing type deal.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The NHL shares approximately 9% of revenues as compared to the highly socialistic NFL at 70% and MLB and the NBA at about 35% each.

The NHLPA has proposed significant revenue sharing but that is not something that Bettman can sell to his employers. Significant revenue sharing would level the ice surface.

Recently Ted Saskin in a radio interview on 18 November 2004 said that if the owners were prepared to share revenues at an NFL level then the NHLPA would consider a salary cap. "If Bettman wants to revenue share 70 percent of all their revenues we can look at different mechanisms, but they have made pretty plain to us that they have only the most nominal, nominal notions of revenue sharing. We're the ones who are trying to push the envelope and get more revenue sharing and we are willing to take taxes on player payroll to try to create pools for revenue sharing. I think it's important."

"The Players are prepared to modify their revenue-sharing plan in order to distribute money from high-revenue clubs to low-revenue clubs in the amounts suggested by the league. Under this plan, low-revenue clubs would receive $80 million to $100 million per year," Goodenow said in a statement.

According to Larry Brooks of the New York Post, the NHLPA's original offer in September had revenue sharing figures at around $215 million dollars. Bettman apparently found the union's revenue sharing pool $115 million too high and the union adjusted its plan to get it down to around $100 million at Bettman's request as he said he could not bring that level of revenue sharing to ownership. Bear in mind that NHL revenues are $2 billion.

The NHLPA's last proposal also included a plan for revenue sharing. This is not a redistribution through a luxury tax, but a system of moving revenues from high revenue teams to low revenue teams. The plan doesn't go into a lot of details about the formula, but does say it follows the league's guidelines that teams must meet certain minimum revenue requirements in order to receive redistributed revenue. Overall, the plan redistributes $65 million from high revenue teams to low revenue teams. The union says the plan shrinks the difference between the highest and lowest revenue teams from $76 million to $58 million. Here are the figures as set out by the NHLPA in its proposal:

Team Revenue Sharing
Anaheim Mighty Ducks Receive $4.2 million
Atlanta Thrashers Receive $8.8 million
Boston Bruins Send $3.9 million
Buffalo Sabres Receive $8.4 million
Calgary Flames Receive $4.7 million
Carolina Hurricanes Receive $4.1 million
Chicago Blackhawks Neither Send Nor Receive
Colorado Avalanche Send $8.9 million
Columbus Blue Jackets Neither Send Nor Receive
Dallas Stars Send $9.9 million
Detroit Red Wings Send $7.9 million
Edmonton Oilers Neither Send Nor Receive
Florida Panthers Receive $4.4 million
Los Angeles Kings Send $990,000
Minnesota Wild Send $3.0 million
Montreal Canadiens Send $5.0 million
Nashville Predators Receive $10.3 million
New Jersey Devils Neither Send Nor Receive
NY Islanders Receive $740,000
NY Rangers Send $6.0 million
Ottawa Senators Receive $1.5 million
Philadelphia Flyers Send $6.9 million
Phoenix Coyotes Receive $8.9 million
Pittsburgh Penguins Receive $1.7 million
San Jose Sharks Receive $61,000
St. Louis Blues Neither Send Nor Receive
Tampa Bay Lightning Receive $1.0 million
Toronto Maple Leafs Send $10.9 million
Vancouver Canucks Send $2.0 million
Washington Capitals Receive $6.7 million

During Bettman's appearance on CBC to take viewer questions about the CBA and lockout, he mentioned revenues eight times. But he seldom mentions how revenue might be shared among the 30 teams in the league. That's because it may be one of the most divisive issue among owners.

A report on the NHL by by investment banker Moag & Company this past summer summed up the league's stand on revenue sharing this way:

"There is currently no plan emanating from the Commissioner’s office to tie a salary cap to revenue sharing. Previously, the players’ union has said that it would only consider limiting salaries in the context of significant revenue sharing. That said, the league has suggested in the past that revenue sharing does not require NHLPA approval. If nothing else, this rhetoric suggests that the owners have been unable to agree even amongst themselves as it relates to revenue sharing."

A consultant who works for the NHL was more blunt, telling the New York Post recently, "Hockey owners won't do this; they'll fight to the end not to share their revenues, since most of them get their revenue locally. The real trouble is that the conflict isn't going to just a labor issue of players versus owners — it's going to be owners against owners."

NHL owners aren't talking about the issue because Bettman has imposed a gag order on the CBA and related issues, but others aren't afraid to do it for the owners.
Here's a comment from Vartan Kupelian and Mike O'Hara of the Detroit News on what Red Wings owner Mike Ilitch might be thinking about revenue sharing.

"The Red Wings and Joe Louis Arena during hockey season are cash cows for Ilitch. The Red Wings have been a power for more than a decade and have won the Stanley Cup three times.

"Now you’re being told the landscape must change and that you must help the weaker franchises survive. But you don’t want a salary cap or other measures that would restrict your ability to put together the best team.

"You don’t want revenue sharing because you don’t want to send money down to Nashville, Florida or Carolina. Why would you? You’ve done your business well, hired the right people at the right times and put them in the right positions. But those teams — Nashville, Florida, Carolina and others — are going to the NHL and Ilitch with hats in hand."

Toronto, Philadelphia, and the New York Rangers could join the chorus as well. They all produce big revenues as well and might have a problem sending it to teams that don't do a good job of marketing their teams and producing revenue.

Here is ESPN's EJ Hradek's proposal on revenue sharing:

Revenue sharing
If the NHL wants to grow and find stronger footing on the landscape of professional sports, the owners must be more willing to share their revenues. In the early 1960s, former NFL commissioner Pete Rozelle saw the system's advantages well before television dollars began rolling in. The NFL became a powerful league because its owners were willing to follow Rozelle's plan.

In this proposal, which is radically different from their current plan, each NHL club must contribute the following to a central pool:
*40 percent of regular-season gate revenue
*10 percent of regular-season local broadcast revenue
*10 percent regular-season local cable revenue
*10 percent of regular-season local radio and new media revenue
*25 percent of in-arena revenue (luxury suites, concessions, etc.)

That central pool also will include the following national revenue:
*100 percent of the league's national television revenue
*40 percent of the league's national sponsorship revenue
*100 of the league's preseason and special games revenue (All-Star game, skills competition, Heritage Classic, etc.)

The central fund would then be divided by 30 (or less if all 30 teams did not meet the low-end threshold) and equal shares would be redistributed to each club. Using current league numbers, this system would result in an approximate $25.9 million pay out to each club. Again, if a club fails to meet the payroll minimum threshold of $27.2 million, they will not be eligible for their share of the revenue pie. This will force those small market clubs to spend at least the minimum on salary and not pocket shared revenue.

Each club will still retain the following:
*60 percent of regular-season gate receipts and 100 percent of their playoff gate receipts
*90 percent of regular-season local broadcast revenue and 100 percent of their playoff local broadcast revenue
*90 percent of regular-season cable television revenue and 100 percent of their playoff cable TV revenue
*90 percent of regular-season radio and new media revenue and 100 percent of their playoff radio and new media revenue
*75 percent of regular-season in-arena revenue and 100 percent of their playoff in-arena revenue

The system will limit the financial advantage of big-market teams while giving smaller market clubs a better chance to compete. All clubs will have a financial incentive to grow their local revenues.

And his luxury tax proposal:

Luxury Tax
This solution includes a luxury tax system with a high-water threshold at $34 million per team, including salary and all bonuses (except for performance bonuses that will be capped at $4 million per club). However, each club will be allowed an exemption. That exception won't be counted against the team's payroll, but the club can't pay their exemption a salary and bonus that exceeds 20 percent of the team's total payroll or a maximum of $6 million. If a team's payroll were $28.7 million, for example, then its exemption would be $5.75 million.

A club can use up to three players within the exemption. For example, a club that has reached $34 million in team payroll and bonuses can sign one additional player to a $6 million contract or use it to pay two or three additional players.

During the first year of the new deal, there will be a phase-in period during which clubs will be taxed 25 cents for every dollar over $34 million. It might be painful, but it has to be done.

In years two through five of the deal, clubs will be taxed 50 cents on every dollar over the threshold, up to $38,999,999. If a club's payroll is equal to or above $39 million, they will pay $1 for every dollar over that amount. For example, in 2007-08, if a team's payroll were $43 million, that club would pay a league tax of $6.5 million. That tax money would be redistributed to all clubs under the high-end tax threshold.

As part of this luxury tax proposal, there will be a low-end threshold on team payroll set at $27.2 million. Clubs failing to reach that payroll level will not be eligible to receive money from the league's revenue sharing program (see below). All clubs under the league's high-end threshold (even if they failed to meet the minimum payroll standard) would be eligible to participate in the funds accumulated in the tax pool.

Under this plan, when a big-market team wants to make a business decision based on a broader corporate philosophy (think Cablevision/New York Rangers); they can still do so, but not without paying a penalty tax.

Here is how revenue sharing would look under the Hradek plan:

Rank Team Actual Revenues Paid In Pool Received Net Gain/Loss Final Revenues % Change
1 New York Rangers $113 $42 $26 -$16 $97 -16.5%
2 Dallas Stars $108 $40 $26 -$14 $94 -14.9%
3 Toronto Maple Leafs $105 $39 $26 -$13 $92 -14.1%
4 Philadelphia Flyers $101 $38 $26 -$12 $89 -13.5%
5 Detroit Red Wings $89 $33 $26 -$7 $82 -8.5%
6 Colorado Avalanche $88 $33 $26 -$7 $81 -8.6%
7 Boston Bruins $84 $30 $26 -$4 $80 -5.0%
8 Chicago Blackhawks $74 $27 $26 -$1 $73 -1.4%
9 Los Angeles Kings $78 $29 $26 -$3 $75 -4.0%
10 Montreal Canadiens $71 $26 $26 $0 $71 0%
11 Minnesota Wild $79 $30 $26 -$4 $75 +5.3%
12 New York Islanders $56 $20 $26 +$6 $62 +10.7%
13 St Louis Blues $67 $25 $26 +$1 $68 +1.5%
14 New Jersey Devils $73 $28 $26 -$2 $71 -2.8%
15 Columbus Blue Jackets $66 $25 $26 +$1 $67 +1.5%
16 San Jose Sharks $65 $25 $26 +$1 $66 +1.5%
17 Tampa Bay Lightning $65 $25 $26 +$1 $66 +1.5%
18 Washington Capitals $62 $23 $26 +$3 $65 +4.8%
19 Vancouver Canucks $66 $26 $26 $0 $66 0%
20 Phoenix Coyotes $43 $16 $26 +$10 $53 +23.2%
21 Ottawa Senators $59 $22 $26 +$4 $63 +6.8%
22 Pittsburgh Penguins $57 $21 $26 +$5 $62 +8.8%
23 Florida Panthers $57 $21 $26 +$5 $62 +8.8%
24 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim $59 $22 $26 +$4 $63 +6.8%
25 Atlanta Thrashers $57 $21 $26 +$5 $62 +8.8%
26 Carolina Hurricanes $57 $21 $26 +$5 $62 +8.8%
27 Nashville Predators $46 $17 $26 +$9 $55 +19.6%
28 Calgary Flames $51 $19 $26 +$7 $58 +13.7%
29 Buffalo Sabres $50 $18 $26 +$8 $58 +16.0%
30 Edmonton Oilers $48 $18 $26 +$8 $56 +16.6%

Bettman knows that he would likely lose his job if he tried to implement significant revenue sharing so he will continue to blame the players and demand that they bear all the weight to fix a system that his employers have created.

 

[CarlRacki]

The NHL shares approximately 9% of revenues as compared to the highly socialistic NFL at 70% and MLB and the NBA at about 35% each.

Stop right there.
Before any meaningful discussion takes place beyond this point, you should at least recognize why those leagues are able to share more than the NFL. You can sum it up in two letters: T and V. All three have substantially larger shared national broadcast contracts. This is the primary reason the NFL can share 70 percent of revenues. If you go beyond the national television contracts, you'd see these leagues are not as socialistic as you believe. The NFL, for example, shares 40 percent of its gate and nothing from naming rights, parking, concessions and luxury suites. so, take away the big TV contract, and NFL sharing is closer to 25 percent.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Stop right there.
Before any meaningful discussion takes place beyond this point, you should at least recognize why those leagues are able to share more than the NFL. You can sum it up in two letters: T and V. All three have substantially larger shared national broadcast contracts. This is the primary reason the NFL can share 70 percent of revenues. If you go beyond the national television contracts, you'd see these leagues are not as socialistic as you believe. The NFL, for example, shares 40 percent of its gate and nothing from naming rights, parking, concessions and luxury suites. so, take away the big TV contract, and NFL sharing is closer to 25 percent.

And your point would be.....................

Of course the sports are different but that is not preventing the NHL from trying to force an NFL style salary cap. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the NHL wants an NFL style cap then share revenues at the level of the NFL.

 

[CarlRacki]

And your point would be.....................

Of course the sports are different but that is not preventing the NHL from trying to force an NFL style salary cap. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the NHL wants an NFL style cap then share revenues at the level of the NFL.

If the NHL installed the exact same revenue sharing system as the NFL's a huge disparity in percentage shared would still exist. Why? Because of the difference in national TV contracts. Get it? This is not rocket science.

 

[Wetcoaster]

If the NHL installed the exact same revenue sharing system as the NFL's a huge disparity in percentage shared would still exist. Why? Because of the difference in national TV contracts. Get it? This is not rocket science.

Of course I got your point - IMHO it is not valid.

 

[CarlRacki]

Of course I got your point - IMHO it is not valid.

So you propose NFL-style revenue sharing without NFL-style revenue sources? Good luck with that.

 

[Wetcoaster]

So you propose NFL-style revenue sharing without NFL-style revenue sources? Good luck with that.

As opposed to the NHL proposing an NFL style cap without revenue sharing???? Good luck with that.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

If the NHL installed the exact same revenue sharing system as the NFL's a huge disparity in percentage shared would still exist. Why? Because of the difference in national TV contracts. Get it? This is not rocket science.

But the NFL doesn't have local TV and Cable packages like the NHL. There is no such thing as a local broadcast (minus exhibition games) So therefore in theory instead of sharing a National TV contract like the NFL shares, the NHL could share 30 local TV/Cable and Radio contracts. I mean even MLB shares some of it;s local revenue ontop of the National Deals given to Fox and ESPN.

 

[CarlRacki]

But the NFL doesn't have local TV and Cable packages like the NHL. There is no such thing as a local broadcast (minus exhibition games) So therefore in theory instead of sharing a National TV contract like the NFL shares, the NHL could share 30 local TV/Cable and Radio contracts. I mean even MLB shares some of it;s local revenue ontop of the National Deals given to Fox and ESPN.

1. The NFL has local radio contracts, which I daresay are worth more than most NHL's teams TV and radio deals.
2. Combine all the NHL's national and local TV and radio deals and I'd be stunned if it added up to a quarter of the NFL's TV deals (roughtly $3.8 billion/year from the networks + $400 million/year from DirecTV = $4.2 billion).

 

[CarlRacki]

As opposed to the NHL proposing an NFL style cap without revenue sharing???? Good luck with that.

When have I ever opposed revenue sharing?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

1. The NFL has local radio contracts, which I daresay are worth more than most NHL's teams TV and radio deals.
2. Combine all the NHL's national and local TV and radio deals and I'd be stunned if it added up to a quarter of the NFL's TV deals (roughtly $3.8 billion/year from the networks + $400 million/year from DirecTV = $4.2 billion).

Your never gonna get NFL type revenue in the NHL. But that doesn't mean the NHL cant share it's revenues after all 2.1 billion dollars isn't chump change. So what if it's a smaller piece of pie than other make? We all realize this, but if revenue sharings helps small market teams i dont see how it could be a bad thing.

 

[CarlRacki]

Your never gonna get NFL type revenue in the NHL. But that doesn't mean the NHL cant share it's revenues after all 2.1 billion dollars isn't chump change. So what if it's a smaller piece of pie than other make? We all realize this, but if revenue sharings helps small market teams i dont see how it could be a bad thing.

Like I said, I'm fine with revenue sharing. I think it's a good thing and would benefit the league as a whole. But anyone who believes the NHL has the ability or resources to share on the same percentage basis as the NFL is loony.

 

[shveik]

That's a catch-22 IMO. They could ask for it, but the the owners have every right to tell them to mind their own business. I could see this as a concession, but not as a primary bargaining point. They can ask, but I'm not sure it would get very far. I know if I were an owner I would politely tell them to mind their own business unless they are willing to assume some of the risk.

The leap that the owners have to make for significant revenue sharing is the same as the players have to make to accept the cap. As for the assuming the risk, that has already been asked of players in the form of cap.

Actually, we are talking about something almost as complex as that. These owners bought in with an agreement to certain monetray systems and protections to their earnings. This is why there is no NHL team in Hamilton. The teams in that region (Toronto and Buffalo) have exclusivity. The NHL could likely negotiate with these team, but that would take time and require potential penalties from a new franchisee in Hamilton, paying restitution to Toronto and Buffalo. To go into something as complex as revenue sharing the francises would likely have to vote unanimously infavor of something like that. Or the league would have to offer a buy out of the clubs refusing to cooperate. Again, its very complex and not something you undertake while in the midst of a CBA negotiation. It is definitely something you do not tie into to the CBA without having definite plans as to how it will impact the agreement and the way business is done.

Nobody is arguing that jumping from the practically non-existent sharing to something significant as NHLPA proposes is a drastic change. Jumping from a no-cap CBA to a salary cap is just as drastic. Anyhow, the heart of the NHL bargaining position is that drastic changes are absolutely necessary for the survival of the league, so they cannot dismiss revenue sharing because it is complex.

 

[PecaFan]

Not sure about repaying expansion fees, but those new "attractive" markets haven't done anything to get the NHL a better TV deal. The recently signed television contract is far worse than it used to be.

True, but those markets were key in getting the *last* couple of contracts, which brought in huge bucks.

ABC and Fox specifically told the NHL that they needed a bigger footprint in the US, especially the south. It was a major reason behind expansion.

 

[SENSible1*]

What is being ignored in this discussion is that the owners offer made revenue sharing a private matter between the owners. If they had proposed a hard cap with no minimum cap or a large gap between the max and min cap, then the players would have a right to ask for revenue sharing to put the big market profits in play.

They didn't.

The owners are garauteeing the PA that they will have access to mid 50's % of the league revenues. How the owners get the money to pay the players in the small markets is entirely up to the owners and frankly none of the players business.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

"Nashville Predators Receive $10.3 million"

What a freaking joke

The team plays in a building RENT FREE, yet still get concessions

The team gives half of their tickets away or in 2 for 1 offers and still does not draw flys

The team MADE the playoffs

Maybe they should bargain for the bigger market teams to pay their travel too

I was never for contraction until I read crap like this. This league needs 2-4 teams gone real soon. To have a healthy plant, sometimes you need to trim off the dead leaves.

Sorry Nashville fans but convince me that under ANY sort of CBA that does not involve becoming a welfare state with the league and other teams supporting you. HOW this team can thrive?

 

[CarlRacki]

What is being ignored in this discussion is that the owners offer made revenue sharing a private matter between the owners. If they had proposed a hard cap with no minimum cap or a large gap between the max and min cap, then the players would have a right to ask for revenue sharing to put the big market profits in play.

They didn't.

The owners are garauteeing the PA that they will have access to mid 50's % of the league revenues. How the owners get the money to pay the players in the small markets is entirely up to the owners and frankly none of the players business.

Very true. As fans, we should demand some level of revenue sharing because it's good for the game and good for competitive balance. The PA, on the other hand, is using the issue solely as a diversion from the real battles being fought over who gets what share of the pie.

 

[broman]

The owners are garauteeing the PA that they will have access to mid 50's % of the league revenues. How the owners get the money to pay the players in the small markets is entirely up to the owners and frankly none of the players business.

Ermm... not quite, I think. It is no coincidence that revenue sharing and salary caps go hand in hand in all major pro sports. If there's one there's another, but not either or. They're two sides of the same coin.

Revenue sharing makes it possible for weaker teams to compete financially for players' services. That makes it very much a player issue. If the players were to limit their options by accepting a cap, they would expect something in return.

Without significant revenue sharing, select rich teams will hit the cap while others will flounder at or just above the low water mark. With revenue sharing more teams will hit the cap, thus creating more demand and a better market for players.

I understand full well that revenue sharing is not a CBA issue per se but something that the owners agree amongst themselves. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't (or shouldn't) be used as a bargaining chip.

I also understand that NHL doesn't have NFL-level TV monies to share. That however is no excuse not to implement revenue sharing. Where the money comes from is irrelevant. What matters is what you do with it.

Also, there is no fundamental difference in sharing a total pot of, say, $20B and $2B that dictates you couldn't share for instance 35% of both. To say that NHL has no "ability or resources to share on the same percentage basis as the NFL" is just groundless.

Having said all that, I fully understand why the owners don't want revenue sharing on the table. It is not something that they could agree on all that easily, and it's in their best interest to keep it out of the agenda. But that's something that should be considered while we are busy painting the players as bad guys. The blame goes both ways.

 

[SENSible1*]

Revenue sharing makes it possible for weaker teams to compete financially for players' services. That makes it very much a player issue. If the players were to limit their options by accepting a cap, they would expect something in return.

Without significant revenue sharing, select rich teams will hit the cap while others will flounder at or just above the low water mark. With revenue sharing more teams will hit the cap, thus creating more demand and a better market for players.

I understand full well that revenue sharing is not a CBA issue per se but something that the owners agree amongst themselves. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't (or shouldn't) be used as a bargaining chip.

With such a small range between the high and low cap, there is very little effect on the competition for players. I'd suggest that the vast majority of teams in the NHL would be at the cap level, with the remaining teams only $1 or $2 M behind.

The PA is welcome to attempt to use it as a baraining chip, and I'm sure the owners have already built increased revenue sharing into the equation as a "concession" they are willing to give as part of their real bottom line deal. That being said, the owners were smart enough to take the wind out of the PA sails by providing a framework that demonstrates that revenue sharing is in reality a owner to owner negotiation.

 

[Tom_Benjamin]

Another reason significant revenue sharing is critical if salaries are going are going to be pegged to league revenues involves trust.

Under the NHL plan presented to the players, everyone has an incentive to hide revenues. Significant revenue sharing would include involving owners policing owners.

Tom