From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,rec.sport.hockey
Subject: Re: Greedy Athletes
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr8.032911.1250@oz.plymouth.edu> m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier) writes:
>>There's no major network contract in the US because well over half
>>the country doesn't care about a Canadian three-game-in-one (cf.
>>George Carlin).  As for "only six teams routinely mak[ing] a profit,"
>>how do you know this?  Have you seen the books, or are you just
>>eating up the self-serving owners talk hook, line, and sinker?
>
>The fiscal woes of the NHL are well reported and documanted, and much
>of this is due to poor marketing and the lack of a major network
>contract.  Without this huge source of money coming in every year, is
>it any wonder that the NHL is not as fiscally strong as the NBA, NFL
>or MLB?

Hockey isn't as fiscally strong as the NBA, NFL, or MLB because:

(1) Hockey isn't as popular as basketball.
(2) Hockey isn't as popular as football.
(3) Hockey isn't as popular as baseball.
(4) Hockey isn't even as popular as golf, wrestling, or bowling.

And marketing has nothing to do with it -- to get a big TV contract,
it has to be sold to a *national* audience, and over half of the
country has no interest in ever seeing a hockey game.  The first
three sports mentioned are all sports that that anybody can play
any time, but hockey requires ice, and there's a solid chunk of the
television market that sees icy weather maybe once every three years.

And "well reported and documented" by whom??  Baseball owners have been
claiming that salaries can't increase one bit or they'll all go bankrupt
since the nineteenth century.  Once again:  have the hockey owners opened
their books to demonstrate this alleged loss-making?  Or have they just
repeated the "fact" that they're "losing money" so often to sports
"reporters" that it's appeared unquestionly in the newspapers a lot?

As mentioned earlier, the value of a hockey franchise has gone up from
$1 million to $50 million in a very short time.

It's very demonstrable that the players are underpaid.  A New York Times
magazine article on the guy who owns the Los Angeles Kings said that they
were losing $2 million a year before Gretzky came (they were selling less
than half of their tickets), but after The Trade, and paying Wayne a 
$3 million/year salary, the Kings were showing a $5 million/year profit.

In other words, Wayne Gretzky increased the *profits* (not the revenues)
by ten million dollars all by himself, of which he sees about 30%.
Now, who are the fans paying money to see?  Wayne, or Jerry Buss?  So
why does the owner get twice as much as Wayne?
-- 
Ted Frank          + "A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in
U o' C Law Skool   +  color and content according to the circumstances and
Chi, IL 60637      +  the time in which it is used."  --  Holmes
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,alt.politics.homosexuality