The Hockey Blues

As an avid hockey fan, I really missed the chance to attend NHL games over this semester break. I'm sure others share the same blues about his issue. What went from a supposed half-season lockout has now turned into a full season lockout. Hopefully the arenas can survive, especially those that are not multi purpose stadiums such as the Igloo in Pittsburgh. There's only so man circuses and concerts a venue can put on due to nearby competition, but is it enough to keep the arenas alive without the stream of income from hockey?

So what's with hockey these days? Should the finger be pointed toward the owners or the players? Are the players truly underpaid (which from comparing NHL players’ average salary to that of MLB players, they are) while the owners are 'tweaking' book profits? Or are the profits what they are and the players will have to take a salary hit if they still have enough passion for the game to play?

These are all questions I'm wondering, but right now I'd like to focus on one possible reason for the long lockout, arbitration. The NHL uses traditional arbitration, which would consist of a player, or the NHLPA, putting forth a salary offer and the owners, or the league in this instance, countering the offer. In traditional arbitration the arbitrators examine both offers and can decide on either offer, but generally tend to favor something in the middle of the two. This leads to problems, long arbitration and small contract zones. The players have the incentive to overvalue themselves while the team owners have the incentive to undervalue the player. This can lead to a very small contract zone and leave little or no room for negotiation. Click here for a list of all of the hockey players that sought wage arbitration in 2004.

Now, click here to compare the amount of NHL players asking for arbitration to that of the MLB. I found this to be grossly disproportionate, especially given the fact that there are many more players in the MLB (30 teams in both leagues, but average roster for MLB is 40 and only around 20 for the NHL). But, MLB utilizes a different 'flavor' of arbitration, called "final offer". In this environment, a player and team both submit salary offers as before, but the arbitrator(s) chooses only one offer, there is no 'middle ground' per say. If the player shoots too high and the arbitrator agrees with the owner, he could risk losing a lot, and vice versa for the owner. This induces both parties to put up an initial offer that is close to what each side estimates would be the arbitrator's decision in the matter. In doing this, the contract zone is expanded, and often in the MLB, arbitration is not used as an active tool, and most cases that do go to arbitration have a wide contract zone. The player and the team both have the incentive to negotiate 'out of court' or such.

Could this be something the NHL should look at instituting?