Damien Cox: The NHL and its players have been getting along during the pandemic, but how long will the good relations last?

Opinion Sep 25, 2020 by Damien Cox Contributing Columnist

It’s hard to explain to hockey fans who weren’t around at the time just how different the NHL was three decades ago. Not just the hockey, although there have been remarkable changes in the size, speed, skill and equipment used, but in the overall business.

Back in 1990, with John Ziegler running the NHL and Alan Eagleson in charge of the NHL Players’ Association, the league was often run in informal ways, with lots of wink-wink agreements between the owners and the representatives of the players. That changed dramatically when Gary Bettman took over from Ziegler in the winter of 1992 and Bob Goodenow became the new boss of the players’ union.

The NHL began to grow, the money quickly got much more significant and the cosy relationship between NHL executives and the NHLPA evaporated. In its place came a period of bitter and destructive relations between the two organizations as the league expanded and modernized, and as the union went through a series of leaders and fought more than a few internal battles.

It lasted for nearly a quarter-century. Two seasons, the 1994-95 campaign and the 2012-13 season, were shortened by owners’ lockouts. Another lockout completely destroyed the 2004-05 season, and the Stanley Cup wasn’t awarded for the first time since the First World War.

The relationship was fiercely adversarial, mostly because it had to be after the Eagleson years when it seemed he was working with the owners more than he was working to benefit the players.

Now, nearly 30 years into this new era of NHL labour relations, the spirit between the two sides has turned decidedly co-operative. That’s good, because it at least gives the NHL a decent chance to come out on the other side of this global pandemic in somewhat the same form.

After this Stanley Cup final between Dallas and Tampa Bay, followed by next week’s draft, it’s unclear what happens next, or when.

“There’s still too much we don’t know,” Bettman said recently.

The biggest question is whether the NHL can resume without substantial income from selling tickets and filling arenas. A few months of bubble hockey without fans is one thing. The players had already been paid. But another season without ticket revenue of any kind just doesn’t work. That is, it doesn’t work if players are to receive their full salaries.

What that means is that the next six months, and possibly the next year, is going to represent the biggest challenge for the NHL and the union since the 2004-05 disaster. The politics of NHL labour relations will determine whether the owners and players can work this out, or whether this becomes a massive labour imbroglio pitting the two sides against each other.

Right now, the signs are positive. The NHL’s return to play has basically gone off without a hitch. Just before these bubble playoffs began, the two sides agreed on an extension to the collective bargaining agreement to Sept. 15, 2026, and possibly another year after that.

In theory, this guarantees labour peace. But if the business can’t get back to pre-pandemic revenue levels relatively soon, that CBA agreement could be threatened, particularly if the players aren’t willing to absorb significant pay cuts.

Both sides are keenly aware of the threat. One of the less-discussed parts of the CBA extension is that players have already agreed to defer 10 per cent of their salaries, to be paid out over three seasons beginning in 2022-23.

The salary deferral suggests both sides already agree the next few seasons are likely to be rocky. That’s good. But there’s rocky, and then there’s apocalyptic. If the NHL can’t start selling tickets again until late 2021 or 2022, the business is going to be under severe duress. It’s not impossible teams could go bust, with Arizona and maybe Ottawa at the top of the list.

Senators owner Eugene Melnyk already seems to be preparing for more frugal times ahead. The team told veterans Craig Anderson and Mark Borowiecki they weren’t welcome back, then on Friday made the decision to buy out the final two years of winger Bobby Ryan’s $50-million (U.S.) contract.

If you’re an NHL owner who believes the business is badly damaged and isn’t going to be bouncing back soon, you’d be doing exactly what Melnyk is doing. Cutting costs, reducing liabilities.

Remember, for the first time since 2005-06, the salary cap will be fixed, and not linked to league revenues. If owners suffer massive revenue reductions, they’re not going to be willing to pay the players at 50-50 pre-pandemic levels. But without the cap linked to revenues, there’s no formula to decide what salary cuts could be instituted. No limits, either.

The NHL would have the leverage of saying it just can’t open its doors without pay cuts. You’re going to hear lots of speculation about NHL owners declaring “force majeure,” an unforeseen event that causes an entity to be unable to fulfil a contract. In this case, that event would be the coronavirus, and the NHL might be able to argue that it can’t be responsible fulfilling its end of the CBA extension because of the pandemic. That sounds like a court battle.

The players would have to try and protect their salaries as much as possible. But no games would mean no paycheques, just like 2004-05. That was when the owners successfully rammed a salary cap down the throats of the players.

The kind of co-operative atmosphere we’ve seen between the owners and players this year, if it lasts, could help the two sides work through a difficult period together. A return to the years of bitter fighting between the league and union could create lasting scars.

Damien Cox is a former Star sports reporter who is a current freelance contributing columnist based in Toronto. Follow him on Twitter: @DamoSpin