Quote:
Originally Posted by jourdo
To me the physical risk is part of the job they signed up for and are handsomely rewarded for doing. The players are free to find another source of employment like the majority of the 9 to 5'ers, but they chose professional sports as their career.
I know they put their bodies through hell, and many suffer long term as a result... but it was ultimately their choice to take the job.
|
It's a completely different situation than a 9-5 job though. On almost a daily basis they risk injury - I can't say that about my own job even though there is some danger in my work place due to the nature of the wonderful place.
I'd imagine most don't although things like construction work and emergency services employees would have maybe higher risk jobs than hockey players do I'd imagine.
Things like back problems or repetitive strain injuries are pretty insignificant next to getting a slap shot in the throat. There is a risk/reward situation in play.
They are certainly agreeing to the risk but the reward still has to be there as well.
The owners are not risking more than the players are in that sense. Also these players have to put their bodies through the same abuse through the junior and minor league ranks for very little money(in a lot of cases likely less than you or I make).
The average AHL salary is roughly $55,000 a year. Other minor league hockey players are more like $22,000 a year. Sure some guys are likely playing there for the love of the game, but that isn't a lot of money.
Its the light at the end of the tunnel that has to serve as motivation.
A question to Jourdo is this, in your eyes how much to the players deserve to get paid? Right now the league min is around $500,000, with the average being maybe 2.2 million or so.
Its a lot of money all the way around, but how much less should they be getting?
And if they agree to less what would happen if a player like Ovechkin, or Malkin, or whoever decided to stay in Russia? Would that make the NHL better or worse in the long term?
I just don't see this situation as a simple one. If the NHL wants to cut the salaries by 10% to 20%(by all accounts) the top end players in the league are going to have other options available to them.
No one forced the NHL to sign players to those contracts and no one forced the NHL teams to spend to the top of the salary cap. Yet they do it, then they come to the players and ask for some of the money back.
Its kinda a weird dynamic they have going there and I'm not sure what the answer is. I recognize that long term the best deal for teams like the Jets, Oilers and Flames is one that favors the owners, but at the same time if the owners don't agree to put in some controls(like how Philly just screwed Nashville, basically forcing them to sign Weber to a huge 14 year contract) then I don't see how its good for anyone.
Less money to the players will not make the league more competetive if Philly is still allowed to operate in that fashion.
Anyway, thats more than I planned on typing
I just kinda enjoy the subject
