Would the NHL be better without its current owners?

NHL Lockout 2012 is in full swing: Games are cancelled, fans are alienated and forgotten, and players are headed overseas – but what if there were no owners?
 

The NHL lockout is a symbol of greed triumphing over loyalty. Owners offer alluring, seismic contracts only to debate their validity each time the collective bargaining agreement expires. Players paid to play hockey for a living refuse to take a pay cut and stand united in their refusal to take the ice. A controversial commissioner fails to prevent a work stoppage yet again. Blame is publicly passed back and forth between the owners and NHLPA – but what if there were no owners?


The NHL was initially designed as a not-for-profit association as defined by its constitution. In recent years, profitability is ironically the sole focus of the game and the fundamental cause of the 2012 NHL lockout. Franchise owners complain that because of player salaries, the result of contracts voluntarily offered by franchises to the players they employ, profitability is restricted. The Minnesota Wild owner, Craig Leipold, had the audacity to spend 196 million dollars this offseason on Zach Parise and Ryan Suter only to explain the lockout as a necessary negotiation to alleviate the financial struggles that arise from profit-crippling player salaries. The NHL lockout is a cruel irony that leaves fans of the NHL lost. With preseason games officially being cancelled, it seems the cancellation of games that count is inevitable as the NHLPA and the owners fail to come to a resolution. We were told that the lost season that resulted from the last NHL lockout was necessary to save the game. Rules were changed to make hockey more exciting and alluring to casual fans, an unprofitable NHL system was rebuilt, and the NHL prospered under the last CBA. In fact, last season was the most profitable season in NHL history. Somehow, owners claim to have failed to sustain profits despite the most successful season in NHL history. What if owners were eliminated all together?


Each NHL organization could still have the same personnel without an owner. Each franchise could fill all positions necessary to effectively run an organization, acquire advertising and sponsorships, and aim to accrue a profit each season in the same way NHL franchises do now. However, instead of allowing owners to rake in surplus funds, what if the league “owned” each franchise and its rights?


Profits would be circulated through organizations in the same way they are now, with the exception that one greedy person at the top of the pyramid didn’t siphon money from the NHL. Revenue sharing would be the only type of revenue in the league, as all markets filtered into a communal hockey pot back to the players and employees. Ticket prices would fall without the need to satiate ownership and hockey fans would gain a better NHL experience. To prevent ownership from simply controlling a presidential role, top positions could have salaries restricted by the league in the same way player salaries are controlled. In short, the NHL could take back control of their product from the corporate world. Sports is most assuredly a business – but imagine if it wasn’t.