Hockey Deprivation: Disease Corrupting Public's Perception of Justice

We all know the NHL lockout is a popular topic circulating in the sports world right now--and why wouldn’t it be? It showcases the typical struggle over power between suits and unions and revolves around the greatest sport of all time—no one can resist tuning in to watch that, especially when there aren’t any games on. Lockouts are the result of disputes between players’ unions and the league they play in. Currently, those parties are the National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) and the National Hockey League (NHL), respectively. Arguments between the NHL and NHLPA are typically about salary caps, limits to player bonuses, or other money-related issues. Matthew Futterman of the Wall Street Journal writes on the 2012-2013 lockout: “Players now receive about 57% of all revenues. Bettman’s initial offer would have cut that to … 47% … [b]ut that is still unacceptable to the NHLPA, which is willing to cut its share to about 53%.”[1] A fight over 6% of the NHL's revenue is causing a lockout and so far there hasn't been much progress.[2]

Agony of the NHL Lockout for Hockey Diehards[3] 

                 Even with this information, consumers are still receiving mixed messages on the 2012-2013 NHL season. Fans have heard it all: the season could’ve been postponed or cancelled—at one point some of us even believed it wouldn't be affected at all. Now we’re dealing with what appears to be a postponed season as well as extreme cases of hockey withdrawal, anxiety, and depression. Sound dramatic? Here’s proof. (Want some more? Look to the bottom of my post for more entertaining videos from grieving hockey fans.) But why exactly is everyone so up-in-arms about the lockout? The NHL is not and never should have been considered an issue of justice; however, justice does in fact demand hockey fans take into consideration the fact that free markets allow for lockouts and, that in the long run, fans stop complaining about lockouts as if they are matter of justice. 

Robert Nozick, a libertarian philosopher who believed in free markets and minimal states once wrote “[t]he minimal state is the most extensive state that can be justified,”[4] positioning himself against “the man” and for a private business sector. Lockouts appeal to Nozick because they exemplify a government-free realm where businesses can make decisions as they please. Applying Nozick’s conception of justice to the NHL requires we acknowledge the NHL and its thirty participating teams as businesses, not just a league and some teams. People sometimes forget that a player’s association is just a union for top-level athletes, that these “greedy” owners and players are allowed to stand up for what they feel they deserve. True, the lockout is an argument over billions of dollars, but on the grand scale of things, a couple billion dollars to the NHL is equivalent to a couple thousand to you and me. If employees of grocery stores can strike, doesn't it make sense for the NHLPA to be able to do the same?

Videos like the ones linked above make the disagreements behind lockouts seem trivial, but lockouts end up being extremely useful to those in a disagreement. They’re meant to be controversial because each side of the argument wants to hurt the other as much as possible in order to get what they want (although players will argue differently in this commercial). During a lockout, the NHL loses revenue and the players lose part their salaries.

NHL lockout plays like a bad TV reality show[8]

               Yes, “part” of their salaries. While lockouts cause the league’s revenue to dwindle down to just about nothing, players still receive monthly allotments of cash which are negotiated in player contracts for when lockouts occur.[5] Players with signing bonuses receive their bonuses in the midst of a lockout as well.[6] When this isn't enough, players find themselves joining teams in foreign leagues to make more money.[7] Seeing players as greedy now? Feeling bad about your immense hatred for NHL commissioner Gary Bettman? Remember that as much as this issue is an owner’s lockout, it’s a player’s association strike as well. 
               No matter, the longer lockouts last, the weaker each party causing them becomes and the more likely they are to bend to find a solution to their problem. Although sometimes detrimental to both parties, lockouts still prove helpful to those who put them in place.

Some argue in the name of the powerless; for example, Jeremy Bentham advocated that justice is only achieved when something is to the greatest benefit of the greatest number.[9] This means something is just when the majority of the people involved with it may benefit rather than lose from it. They believe the consequences of lockouts include losses in revenue and salaries as well as layoffs of arena employees such as janitors, concession stand workers, and valet drivers. They feel that because the majority of these people can't do anything to prevent lockouts, they're victims. Those with this view agree that post-lockout agreements can save the league a lot of money, but maintain the benefits that come along with this “saved money” reach only a small group of people, leaving everyone else empty-handed. This approach supports arena employees as well as fans and players who are adversely affected by lockouts.

Wilt Chamberlain[10]

            While this might seem plausible, we must first think about the consequences of having a system of intervention to prevent lockouts before assuming that stopping lockouts will be a quick fix for hockey deprivation. Nozick's famous example of this scenario includes star-athlete and professional basketball player Wilt Chamberlain. Nozick believed that if fans were given the opportunity to give an extra twenty-five cents to Chamberlain for each home game he played, they would do so because he's a good player and fun to watch. Eventually, NBA administrators would want to take some of the extra money Chamberlain received and redistribute it to other players and NBA employees, in the name of being fair. Nozick warns that this intervention would have adverse affects: taking Chamberlain's extra money would lower his motivation and he would most likely stop working as hard to be a good player because he'd know that his money would be taken away from him anyways.[11] 
               It's reasonable to believe the same thing would happen in the NHL. If players know that they won't be able to bargain for the best possible wages (as they do in a lockout), less people will want to become hockey players because they'll feel as if they aren't getting paid what they deserve. Additionally, It's unacceptable for anyone to argue on behalf of the “powerless” because they're ignoring the existence of a free market. The U.S. economy is a free market where companies can make decisions freely within it. When there's a free market, businesses are put into the private realm where they’re free from most government and social complications such as legalities against having lockouts. Therefore, there is no sense in taking Bentham’s approach to the NHL lockout issue. (For an economic view on the lockout, feel free to watch this video).

            The National Hockey League and the NHL Player’s Association are in a disagreement. Regardless of what issue(s) they disagree on, they have the right to take part in a lockout until an agreement is made. Due to the existence of free markets, there should be no question of whether NHL lockouts are just. If arguments are to be made against lockouts, it is imperative for hockey fans to be educated on the legalities of the system. The fact that I've previously written two essays on the justness of lockouts is a sad indicator of how much this “issue” has been blown out of proportion. Until the NHL and NHLPA come to an agreement, fans must learn to cope with hockey withdrawl. In the meantime, I suggest creating more hilarious videos and uploading them to the Internet, or watching these ones:

Unlock the NHL[12]

  The Jimiboys: NHL Lockout

  50/50Split: NHL Lockout Explained with Beer

  Things You Won’t Hear During the NHL Lockout

  More Things You Won’t Hear During the NHL Lockout

---

[1] Matthew Futterman, “The NHL: Here we Go again,” Wall Street Journal, Sep 17, 2012, http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1039876252?accountid=14667.

[2] ESPN, Mediation Yields No Progress, ESPN, December 1, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_FXpuc5RVE

[3] Andy Clark/Reuters, "The Surreal Agony of the NHL Lockout for Diehards," JPG, Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/the-surreal-agony-of-the-nhl-lockout-for-hockey-diehards/265178/

[4] Nozick, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” 60-67.

[5] Staudohar, “The Hockey Lockout of 2005-05.”

[6] Kevin Allen, "NHLPA gives players lockout preparation memo," USA Today, December 1, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/nhl/story/2012-09-05/nhlpa-lockout-memo/57609934/1

[7] Staudohar, “The Hockey Lockout of 2005-05.”

[8] Editorial Cartoon, "NHL lockout plays out like a bad TV reality show," JPG, Source: http://www.250news.com/blog/view/25755/1/nhl+lockout+plays+like+a+bad+tv+reality+show

[9] Bentham, “Of the Principle of Utility.”

[10] Fred Palumbo, JPG, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

[11] Nozick, “Anarchy, State, and Utopia” 60-67.

[12] Sportress of Blogitude, JPG, Source: http://www.sportspickle.com/picture/13991/the-official-image-of-the-nhl-lockout