CHL players union ?

[Gomez]

With an increasing amount of information & speculation coming out about payments to entice players away from NCAA rides, imports to come to Canada and that the CHL is a professional development league, is there a need for a WHL / CHL players union? These CHL franchises are increasing in value and some make some serious dough while others struggle. Is there parody? Maybe there is a need for some structure? And maybe this league can prepare owners as well as players for the SHOW?

[Derek Sutton]

I can see something happening in the not to distant future, especially since there is money to be made. The "allowance" these kids are allowed to get is insulting, kids that work 15 hr's a week at Mcdonalds are making more in a month. What is done under the table is another story but that doesn't make it right. I've heard of backroom dealings going as far back as Paul Kariya being offered 200,000 to leave Maine and play in the 'dub. My cousin was promised a car from a team if left to go play with them. If they gave them even $1000/ month that would squash the dark deals and it should make everyone happy; or try something such as, give 16yr olds 700, 17yr olds 900, 18/19 yr olds 1000 and 20yr's 1200. As you alluded to, owners pay 1000's of dollars to Euro teams for playing rights, yet aren't suppose to pay anything to US/ Canadian kids. I realize the money in Europe all goes to the teams but really, whats the difference?

[Toswammi]

Totally off topic...but if they had a union they could end up in the NHL video games.

[Derek Sutton]

All the union would have to do is negociate with EA Sports I guess.

[Gomez]

These players are special talents, even the ones in the middle of the bench, I think the league and ownership need to be proactive in paying the kids more than an average high school joe working at Mcdonald's and disclosing it.

Now what would happen if parents understood that players are compensated differently (under the table). Meanwhile Hockey Parents "Bob & Betty" are forking over family dough to support ($) their son playing away from home, so that the kid getting the under the table dough can go to the NHL.

My concern how this things is going is:
1. parody amoung small market vs large market team and is it possible to "buy" a spot in the playoffs
2. Disclosure - everyone understands what is going.

When a kid on the "under the table program" gets traded does the new team have to honor the "deal?"http://www.whlfans.ca/images/smilies/confused.gif

[scrunt]

FYI:

Parody = A parody, in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody

Parity = Parity in sports is defined as attempting to make an equal playing field for all participants, specifically with regard to financial issues. When parity in a sports league is achieved, all participating teams enjoy roughly equivalent levels of talent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_(sports)

[Gomez]

applause Thank you Scrunt. Now have you anything to add to the discussion besides correcting spelling mistakes?

[scrunt]

applause Now have you anything to add to the discussion besides correcting spelling mistakes?

Sure. You raise some interesting thoughts that involve some complex issues related to recruiting, league finances, and player compensation.

Since the NCAA shuts out CHL players already, increasing player compensation would not affect college US eligibility, so it seems like paying players more should be a simple step.

However, I believe CHL players already get room & board paid for, university scholarships, weekly allowances, etc. so they are already getting significant compensation, even if it is not pure spending money. Such above-board compensation must be equal for all players across all teams, otherwise the wealthier teams would have a legitimized advantage. If the compensation is increased for all players, that would still give wealthier teams an advantage, since the added cost would be much harder for small market teams to absorb.

On that basis -- i.e. the league cannot condone variable compensation -- the under the table stuff becomes a tool some teams use to their advantage. Official disclosure of the situation would not be a solution, as it would mean the league acknowledging actions that are against the rules, which opens a whole bunch of legal issues.

The problem thus becomes one of enforcement of the rules to keep the black market in check. I don't know how a players union would be able to address that, especially since a lot of players/agents/parents benefit from the system the way it is. It would be up to the small market teams to get the league administration to do more to enforce the recruitment rules, but sadly the bigger market teams usually have most of the political clout.

Anyway, a truly level playing field is an idealistic but not really a realistic goal. Sure, revenue sharing can go along way towards maintaining the long term viability of small market teams, but the downside is that poorly managed teams are supported along side well-managed teams in legitimately smaller markets.

Moreover, even if the financial playing field is made more level by revenue sharing and preventing black market payments, there are still the non-financial advantages some teams will always have -- bigger cities, larger buildings, more scout exposure, NHL team ownership, NHL team preferences for drafted players, better practice facilities, etc.

In summary, as I see it changing the rules to increase player compensation would negatively affect parity, unless there was some revenue sharing to protect small market teams. Better enforcement of the recruitment rules by the league would also go some way to levelling the playing field, but I doubt there would ever be a lot of support for that.

ps: My apologies about the correction. I just thought you would rather get the spelling right, since the two words mean very different things [no sarcasm intended].

[Gomez]

If I understand what you are saying, the bottom line for small market teams is they cannot afford to play the black market game and do not have the political power to influence change at the league level. So, small market teams and their fans, should just be quiet and say thank you for letting us play with the big boys. Maybe small market teams should cash in their chips and move the fan base to JR A where they may be a large market Jr A team and have the upper hand.

But wait a minute, if the large market teams do not have any small market teams to play, doesn't that hurt the gate and ad revenues in large markets?

The notion that "a lot of players/agent/parents benefit from the system the way it is". I have trouble with this one. I think a very few players benefit from the system the way it is and large market teams and owners benefit the most. I defy a parent to convince me that average CHL Joe receives more in terms of compensation than it cost his family to play and watch him play in the CHL.

Scrunt thank you for the contribution to the discussion. It made it a lot more interesting.

[scrunt]

Even though I benefit from the big market "advantage" by being a Vancouver Giants fan, I believe that the lifeblood of junior hockey in Canada is in the smaller markets. I fully agree that the league needs healthy teams in all markets to be successful.

I guess my point is that as a realist I don't see a solution that will solve the problem. The "haves" will always have an advantage over the "have nots," if for no other reason than that management in smaller markets has to be as good as -- or better -- than in bigger markets to make up for a smaller potential revenue pool. Or, to put it another way, management in a big market can make a lot more mistakes and still succeed.

I'll admit I don't know enough about the details of a WHL player's financial costs and benefits to comment on whether there is a net financial benefit. Again, however, my cynicism leads me to believe that even if the absolute number of players/agent/parents that benefits from the system is realatively small, it is this group that wields a lot of control, like it or not, because they represent the elite players in the league and they benefit from a supply/demand imbalance for top talent.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the "average" player in the WHL is an exceptional athlete and has to have a rare combination of drive and commitment to make it in the league. But for a typical WHL player to get three or four years of university education paid for by "working" on a WHL team during high school seems like a pretty good result to me. I know my part time jobs in high school and university came nowhere close to covering the cost of my education.

Can anyone share some insight into how much it costs a family to have a kid in the WHL?