Why don't NHL ever resort to a "soft cap" system?

[Rapsfan]

The way NBA does this is reaching the salary cap means you have to pay luxury tax depending on how over the cap you are. While it might be as simple as signing the big names and going over the cap to pay tax, teams constantly try to avoid that. I think that excess tax money goes to the league. In the NHL if you went over the cap, you simply can't play.

Why don't NHL ever adopt a soft cap system with tax? This way it would give better revenue sharing and players can get paid what they're truly worth. I feel like hockey will players will never get paid more (despite enormous investment in that sport from a young age vs basketball) because teams can't afford to touch the cap. Even if you're gonna get superteams, it's not like it's a guarantee to win the cup because as ppl say "hockey is too random". I mean can you really guarantee to win the cup with a full 2 lines of superstars + rest are role players + a superstar goalie?

Click to read more...

 

[mouser]

The NBA owners have been trying to get rid of their soft cap system for a long time now. They haven't succeeded in killing it yet, but the past several CBA's have seen their soft cap system continually reduced and penalties increased.

 

[MikeyMike01]

The salary cap is not about competitiveness. It’s about turning player salaries into a predictable, stable expense for the owners. The small market teams don’t want to pay more. The big market teams don’t want to pay more. That’s it. It’s not going away.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Soft cap is definitely a better system. Probably only a matter of time before they switch over

 

[Empoleon8771]

I swear, the people who scream the loudest about changes needed for the cap understand the cap the least.

Know why a "soft cap" won't exist? Because the revenue split is set at 50/50. The cap exists solely to ensure the revenue split is set in a certain way. I'm pretty sure that the "soft cap" idea would just hurt players overall.

 

[txpd]

Soft cap is definitely a better system. Probably only a matter of time before they switch over

You're joking. Right?

 

[Mr Positive]

it would totally destroy the 50/50 split since you let one team overspend and then balance that by sending money to other teams so they could spend extra.

Ultimately a hard cap gives the league a unique appeal compared to those other sports.

 

[cptjeff]

it would totally destroy the 50/50 split since you let one team overspend and then balance that by sending money to other teams so they could spend extra.

Ultimately a hard cap gives the league a unique appeal compared to those other sports.

You could do it, but escrow would have to go through the roof, which players hate. The cap is about both competitiveness and cost certainty, and always has been. It's not one or the other. You can achieve a revenue split even without a cap at all- the cap certainly makes it easier, but it's possible to do. A hard cap makes the league competitive. The league doesn't want superteams running over everybody. Maybe that appeals to some casual viewers, but it makes fans of teams that aren't the superteam lose interest- and the NHL has very, very few casual viewers without a strong team affiliation. NHL viewership and revenue is almost entirely driven by people watching their own teams, and anything that hurts that is extremely dangerous to the league. Parity keeps those viewers engaged.

It's worth noting that I have never seen anybody not from a big market advocate weakening the cap. I get it- Toronto fans are frustrated that they can't just buy a cup when they should have the money to do it. But the rest of the league gets a vote.

 

[MatthewBarnabysTears]

The salary cap is not about competitiveness. It’s about turning player salaries into a predictable, stable expense for the owners. The small market teams don’t want to pay more. The big market teams don’t want to pay more. That’s it. It’s not going away.

This is what fans have to understand. It’s not part of the competition. Just a tool to reduce labor costs. The league, in the aggregate, has no interest in creating more flexibility.

If this sounds mostly inimical to fan enjoyment, maybe reflect on that!

 

[threeVo]

Why so the same 4 teams win the cup and president trophy every year? The NBA system is a joke. Golden State and BKN have NEGATIVE $60M in cap space.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The owners tanked an entire season to get the hard cap in place. I have a hard time believing that they're looking switch it up.

 

[Rapsfan]

You could do it, but escrow would have to go through the roof, which players hate. The cap is about both competitiveness and cost certainty, and always has been. It's not one or the other. You can achieve a revenue split even without a cap at all- the cap certainly makes it easier, but it's possible to do. A hard cap makes the league competitive. The league doesn't want superteams running over everybody. Maybe that appeals to some casual viewers, but it makes fans of teams that aren't the superteam lose interest- and the NHL has very, very few casual viewers without a strong team affiliation. NHL viewership and revenue is almost entirely driven by people watching their own teams, and anything that hurts that is extremely dangerous to the league. Parity keeps those viewers engaged.

It's worth noting that I have never seen anybody not from a big market advocate weakening the cap. I get it- Toronto fans are frustrated that they can't just buy a cup when they should have the money to do it. But the rest of the league gets a vote.

I mean I'm more of a "players' fan" than a team fan or a bandwagoner. I only follow star players and watch highlights. I rarely watch full games because it's most of the time dominated by role players. I can tell why NHL is less about casual fans than NBA or even the MLB. At least in MLB you can wait until it's a player's turn to bat or pitcher's turn to start while NBA the star player can play nearly the entire game. I honestly don't find hockey that appealing from a team-play standpoint. I rarely even watch Leaf games despite living in Toronto area.

IMO I think the NHL could benefit from having more casual fans although that's probably not feasible due to the cost of entry and how confusing the sport is to newbies. I think the NBA makes a lot of money more from casuals than hardcore or team-based fans.

 

[ArchAngel55]

I mean I'm more of a "players' fan" than a team fan or a bandwagoner. I only follow star players and watch highlights. I rarely watch full games because it's most of the time dominated by role players. I can tell why NHL is less about casual fans than NBA or even the MLB. At least in MLB you can wait until it's a player's turn to bat or pitcher's turn to start while NBA the star player can play nearly the entire game. I honestly don't find hockey that appealing from a team-play standpoint. I rarely even watch Leaf games despite living in Toronto area.

IMO I think the NHL could benefit from having more casual fans although that's probably not feasible due to the cost of entry and how confusing the sport is to newbies. I think the NBA makes a lot of money more from casuals than hardcore or team-based fans.

Hockey is a sport that costs more to play than basketball. Same with soccer. That's one of the reasons it's not more popular. The NBA makes most of their $ from TV contracts.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Bro the owners did a huge lockout and cancelled an entire season over this. They want the hard cap for cost certainty.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Why so the same 4 teams win the cup and president trophy every year? The NBA system is a joke. Golden State and BKN have NEGATIVE $60M in cap space.

Champions since 2010 (11 seasons)

NHL, 7 teams: Chicago (3x), LA (2x), pens (2x), Boston, caps, blues, tampa

NBA, 7 teams: GSW (3x), LA (2x), Miami (2x), Dallas, spurs, cavs, Raptors

Not to mention, Tampa might be a repeat winner again this year while the NBA is guaranteed a new team. But yeah, "same 4 teams". It takes 2 minutes to do a Google search.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Why is every one of OP's threads about why hockey isn't like basketball?

Maybe they are a Basketball fan just getting introduced to Hockey, so what.

 

[Sanchise90]

Man one thing I don't like about how the NBA is how convoluted their soft cap system is. Between "Bird Rights" and "Cap Aprons" etc., its an insanely complicated cap system. It leads to a lot of weird rules, exceptions that need to be created etc. that I don't think need to be introduced honestly.

Another problem is if you establish cap overage exceptions, teams are now potentially paying real dollars for the same cap hit.

Just as an example, let's say we use Gord Miller's idea of 15% not counting against the cap if you've played 7 years in the league on the same team consecutively:

- Player A is making 10 million AAV on a team (just a nice easy number to use)
- Player B a comparable to Player A and has played 7 years with the same team. Player B is about to sign a contract on a team that can go over cap
- Why would Player B not just ask for $11.5 million in real dollars if the AAV will be the same as the guy making $10 million? Otherwise, he could just threaten to go to Free Agency and get the same $10 mill from any other team
- If I'm the owner, why would I want to pay more for a guy than I would normally have to in real dollars when under the previous cap, I could've just paid him per his cap hit?

You might say that scenario is ludicrous but it happens in NBA Free Agency all the time and this is just one scenario. You would have to explore a whole bunch of ideas to keep things equitable under a soft cap system. And when a team like the Leafs, Red Wings, Rangers are all $30 mill over the cap but Ottawa is struggling to hit the floor? You're gonna have to introduce new rules to make it even more equitable, making things more complicated.

It's just a Pandora's Box I don't think anyone wants to open.

 

[threeVo]

Champions since 2010 (11 seasons)

NHL, 7 teams: Chicago (3x), LA (2x), pens (2x), Boston, caps, blues, tampa

NBA, 7 teams: GSW (3x), LA (2x), Miami (2x), Dallas, spurs, cavs, Raptors

Not to mention, Tampa might be a repeat winner again this year while the NBA is guaranteed a new team. But yeah, "same 4 teams". It takes 2 minutes to do a Google search.

Now do the NBA teams that didnt have Kawhi, Steph, or Bron on them

 

[DaveG]

The way NBA does this is reaching the salary cap means you have to pay luxury tax depending on how over the cap you are. While it might be as simple as signing the big names and going over the cap to pay tax, teams constantly try to avoid that. I think that excess tax money goes to the league. In the NHL if you went over the cap, you simply can't play.

Why don't NHL ever adopt a soft cap system with tax? This way it would give better revenue sharing and players can get paid what they're truly worth. I feel like hockey will players will never get paid more (despite enormous investment in that sport from a young age vs basketball) because teams can't afford to touch the cap. Even if you're gonna get superteams, it's not like it's a guarantee to win the cup because as ppl say "hockey is too random". I mean can you really guarantee to win the cup with a full 2 lines of superstars + rest are role players + a superstar goalie?

As things are right now, with the 50/50 split in revenues between owners and players, the cap is already artificially high due to the level of escrow that the players are utilizing. Even pre-pandemic the players had 20% of salaries held in escrow to inflate the cap. So as is players contracts are higher than league revenues would dictate they're actually worth already by a decent bit.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I'm sure some owners with deep pockets might be ok with a soft cap but I can't see there being enough support among the rest to ever be seriously considered.

 

[joepeps]

it would totally destroy the 50/50 split since you let one team overspend and then balance that by sending money to other teams so they could spend extra.

Ultimately a hard cap gives the league a unique appeal compared to those other sports.

Yeah but you have teams that don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to, so they overpay for players that shouldn't make that much and it causes inflation....

You can still have a 50% cap as it would balance out relatively equal

 

[Melrose Munch]

I would prefer it. All this retention and recapture stuff...meh

 

[mouser]

Yeah but you have teams that don't want to spend to the floor and are forced to, so they overpay for players that shouldn't make that much and it causes inflation....

You can still have a 50% cap as it would balance out relatively equal

This argument is so flawed I’m at a loss for words to criticize it.

 

[lawrence]

Wouldn’t mind a system where 2 players of the teams choice don’t count towards the cap.

 

[samiam]

Wouldn’t mind a system where 2 players of the teams choice don’t count towards the cap.

The only way to accomplish this would be to either:

a) Lower the cap by $15-20M to allow for 2 players' contracts to not count against the cap, while still maintaining the 50/50 revenue split, which the salary cap currently accomplishes. Somehow I don't think the players will like the cap going down by that much.

b) Jacking up the escrow an additional 25% to allow 2 contracts per team to not count against the cap, to ensure the 50/50 revenue split. The players HATE escrow with a passion, and would absolutely freak if they have to pay any more than the current 6-10%, let alone jacking it up to 35%.