NHL case analysis

1. From an economic point of view obviously the two parties should reach an agreement as soon as possible. By cancelling the whole 2004-2005 season the league was giving up billions of dollars in revenues. As the lockout went into effect 150 NHL players almost immediately joined European hockey clubs, sports arenas began finding other sources of revenue, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation replaced “Hockey Night in Canada” with “Movie Night in Canada.” As a whole NHL players get paid significantly less than other professional sports such as the NBA, NFL, and MLB. However the National Hockey League also does not bring in as much revenue as the other professional sports. In the 2002-2003 seasons NHL players were getting paid the most when you compare league revenues to player salaries. The great thing about the NHL is most players play for the love of the game rather than how much money they are getting paid. As stated above most players joined club teams just so they could continue doing what they love to do. Cancelling a whole NHL season over money just simply does not seem worth it when you take into account all the money everyone will lose as a result of this. One side of the spectrum you have billionaire owners who care mostly about making money, and on the other side of the spectrum you have players who make a lot of money, but also care a great deal about the game. Since NHL player’s costs were 75 percent of revenues, only 11 teams were reporting operating profits, and 19 teams were reporting operating losses, I understand why a renegotiating of the CBA had to be done. The league’s main goal was to impose a salary cap, which at first Goodenow and the NHLPA were completely opposed too. As the situations got direr and a lockout was in the near future, the union decided that they would consider a salary cap, but the issue of how much the salary cap would be, still remained.
2. Psychological Barriers: In this particular situation I would describe the