Gary Bettman, the Cancerous Idiot
While I follow hockey as a casual fan, it has simply not been my number-one sport. And nevertheless, the longer that the current 60+ day lockout drags on, the more infuriated I get. Members of the players' union are now very openly (and correctly) referring to the NHL commissioner's office as a cancer on the game and to commissioner Gary Bettman personally as "an idiot". In response, Bettman sat down for an interview in Winnipeg and gave a convincing demonstration of why these sentiments are correct and why he is, in fact, an idiot.
The NHL's constant lies since the start of the lockout serve not only to deceive fans, but to also insult everyone's intelligence and common sense. To recap: This whole episode is the owners locking out the players. It is the decision of the owners to not play hockey in a misguided attempt to break the players' union. The players were willing to play while a new labor agreement was hammered out, but the idiot Bettman wasn't having it.
The owners repeatedly accuse the players of being "unwilling to negotiate". This charge seems to be based on nothing more than the players being unwilling to accept the terms that the NHL chooses to dictate. Dictating terms with the expectation that the other side must simply accept them without question is not a negotiation. When the owners start by demanding that players accept less for contracts that have already been signed, well that's not a negotiation either. It's breaking your word. It's reneging on an agreement that's already been made.
This is a situation where a little logic goes a long way. Of course the fans want to be watching hockey -- even the casual and sometimes cynical fans such as myself who snicker about the NHL being relegated to the fishing channel at one time. Professional athletes don't have indefinite careers; there is only a limited window of opportunity to earn a salary and chase a championship. So the players want to be playing. Only the owners have an interest in seeing hockey shut down.
The difference is that without the players, the owners have no product. Fans pay to see NHL games because the NHL is where the best players in the world are. It is the players that have driven the growth of hockey into a $3 billion per year business -- which is not even counting the secondary economic benefits, such as the creation of jobs and the increased business to bars and restaurants.
Speaking of secondary benefits, NHL sponsor Molson Coors is now openly talking about demanding compensation from the league because no hockey means far less beer being consumed in Canada. They have a reasonable case. They are paying millions to the NHL to be a sponsor. The point of being a sponsor is to drive sales and make more money. Instead, the shutdown of the league is costing profits. Molson-Coors essentially is essentially paying the NHL for a benefit that it's not getting.
I've heard various proposals for retaliation from fans. One is for a fan boycott of two games for every game that the NHL has cancelled. So if teams play, for example, 58 games instead of 82 (a difference of 24), 48 of those games would be subject to a fan boycott. Nice idea and one that's worth considering, but the problem with that is it assumes equal responsibility for players and owners.
A better suggestion? Hit the owners where it counts, in the bottom line. This means boycotts of the owners' business concerns. For example, if you're a hockey fan and you're hungry for pizza, call the local Little Caesars and tell them you'll be placing your order with another pizza place because Mike Ilitch won't negotiate in good faith with the players' union to put the Red Wings back on the ice. If Little Caesars restaurants across Michigan were to start getting such calls, Mr. Ilitch would probably get the point in a hurry.
But even if you're not a hockey fan, the lockout illustrates other problems as well. For example, the billions spent every year on corporate welfare to the owners of sports teams to build new stadiums or cover other expenses. Where's the logic in forking so much public money over to private business? Or the behavior of our corporations in general, particularly in their relationships with workers. For both of these issues, the big lesson is that until consumers and fans start voting with their wallets and refusing to spend money with corporations that behave irresponsibly, nothing will really change.
The NHL's constant lies since the start of the lockout serve not only to deceive fans, but to also insult everyone's intelligence and common sense. To recap: This whole episode is the owners locking out the players. It is the decision of the owners to not play hockey in a misguided attempt to break the players' union. The players were willing to play while a new labor agreement was hammered out, but the idiot Bettman wasn't having it.
The owners repeatedly accuse the players of being "unwilling to negotiate". This charge seems to be based on nothing more than the players being unwilling to accept the terms that the NHL chooses to dictate. Dictating terms with the expectation that the other side must simply accept them without question is not a negotiation. When the owners start by demanding that players accept less for contracts that have already been signed, well that's not a negotiation either. It's breaking your word. It's reneging on an agreement that's already been made.
This is a situation where a little logic goes a long way. Of course the fans want to be watching hockey -- even the casual and sometimes cynical fans such as myself who snicker about the NHL being relegated to the fishing channel at one time. Professional athletes don't have indefinite careers; there is only a limited window of opportunity to earn a salary and chase a championship. So the players want to be playing. Only the owners have an interest in seeing hockey shut down.
The difference is that without the players, the owners have no product. Fans pay to see NHL games because the NHL is where the best players in the world are. It is the players that have driven the growth of hockey into a $3 billion per year business -- which is not even counting the secondary economic benefits, such as the creation of jobs and the increased business to bars and restaurants.
Speaking of secondary benefits, NHL sponsor Molson Coors is now openly talking about demanding compensation from the league because no hockey means far less beer being consumed in Canada. They have a reasonable case. They are paying millions to the NHL to be a sponsor. The point of being a sponsor is to drive sales and make more money. Instead, the shutdown of the league is costing profits. Molson-Coors essentially is essentially paying the NHL for a benefit that it's not getting.
I've heard various proposals for retaliation from fans. One is for a fan boycott of two games for every game that the NHL has cancelled. So if teams play, for example, 58 games instead of 82 (a difference of 24), 48 of those games would be subject to a fan boycott. Nice idea and one that's worth considering, but the problem with that is it assumes equal responsibility for players and owners.
A better suggestion? Hit the owners where it counts, in the bottom line. This means boycotts of the owners' business concerns. For example, if you're a hockey fan and you're hungry for pizza, call the local Little Caesars and tell them you'll be placing your order with another pizza place because Mike Ilitch won't negotiate in good faith with the players' union to put the Red Wings back on the ice. If Little Caesars restaurants across Michigan were to start getting such calls, Mr. Ilitch would probably get the point in a hurry.
But even if you're not a hockey fan, the lockout illustrates other problems as well. For example, the billions spent every year on corporate welfare to the owners of sports teams to build new stadiums or cover other expenses. Where's the logic in forking so much public money over to private business? Or the behavior of our corporations in general, particularly in their relationships with workers. For both of these issues, the big lesson is that until consumers and fans start voting with their wallets and refusing to spend money with corporations that behave irresponsibly, nothing will really change.