Old news, but extremely significant news nonetheless: while most people reading my column were enjoying a month-long semester break, the NHL Players’ Association nixed a proposed realignment plan that would have taken effect for the 2012-13 season.
Why is this significant? The NHL collective bargaining agreement expires following the 2010-11 season, and realignment is one of several issues on the table for what are expected to be contentious negotiations. Oh, and the current executive director of the NHLPA is none other than Don Fehr. You know, the same person who led the MLB players’ union through the 1994 strike and the first cancellation of the World Series in a century.
But this isn’t about Don Fehr attempting to run a second sports league into the ground. This is about the continuing disconnect between the NHL and its union that threatens the long-term viability of one of the world’s most popular sports leagues.
To review: The NHL’s plan would have created four conferences (aptly named “Conference A,” “Conference B,” and so on), two with eight teams and two with seven teams. The four conferences would have been organized based on geography and would have also ensured that teams like the Winnipeg Jets would play a home-and-away series. The newly reinstated Winnipeg Jets—who relocated from Atlanta last summer—are still members of the Southeast division, which makes travel concerns a pressing issue.
Why doesn’t the NHL just move Winnipeg to a more geographically suitable division and stick Nashville or Columbus in the Southeast, you ask? Take a look at Conference C, which includes the current Northeast division…plus the two Florida teams. Add in the saga of the Phoenix Coyotes, who seem to be moving to a different city north of the border every week, and you can see why the NHL attempted to move forward with radical realignment rather than a Band-Aid that would have been torn off by each subsequent round of musical chairs.
The NHLPA did have its fair share of concerns about the proposed realignment. The plan called for the top four teams in each conference to qualify for the Stanley Cup playoffs, but with two divisions having eight teams and two having seven, the NHLPA was concerned about clubs in the seven-team conferences having an unfair advantage. The players’ association was also concerned about travel requirements under the realignment plan and felt these concerns were not adequately addressed by the NHL.
Most distressing, however, is a Yahoo! Sports report that the NHLPA was excluded from discussions creating the realignment plan simply because the NHL had no obligation under the existing CBA to include its players’ union. Rather than sit down together and hammer out a solution that was acceptable to all parties, the NHL announced its plan and effectively dared the NHLPA to shoot it down—and, of course, the union did just that.
Back in 2005, the NHL used a similar negotiating tactic to end the lockout while getting everything it wanted. Newsflash: The NHLPA now has far more effective leadership, and Fehr has to be relishing the chance of another showdown with ownership. Now, with the league still recovering from the lockout that wiped out the entire 2004-05 season and potentially on the verge of another lengthy work stoppage, the NHL powers choose to play hardball? Something doesn’t quite add up here. If the NHL has this much trouble agreeing with its players on how to divide up its 30 teams, how can anyone expect the two sides will easily agree on issues such as revenue sharing and a salary structure?
Certainly, from a PR standpoint, this gives the NHL the upper hand heading into negotiations. As NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly commented, “It is unfortunate that the NHLPA has unreasonably refused to approve a plan that an overwhelming majority of our clubs voted to support, and that has received such widespread support from our fans and other members of the hockey community, including players.” Translation: “We want to make the game more enjoyable for the fans, but those mean old players don’t care about the people who pay their salaries.” But would the NHL rather make the players appear to be the aggressors or quickly resolve its labor issues?
With the realignment plan, the NHL had a chance to show it was serious about maintaining labor peace and bargaining in good faith with its union. Instead, the plan merely showed that the sides are content to play hardball and suffer another work stoppage, league be damned.