James Rosinsky

5/07/15

Research Paper

SPM 373-603
2012 National Hockey League CBA

In 2012 the Los Angeles Kings were gearing up to defend their first Stanley Cup
championship but they did not know if they would get the chance to do so. The leagues
collective bargaining agreement had expired. This would bring the league and the union
to the negotiating table for the first time since 2004, where they eventually lost the season
due to a lockout. My paper will describe the main points of the most recent National
Hockey League (NHL) collective bargaining agreement while also inputting some of my
own opinions about the agreement and the league as a whole.
This year brought some new challenges to the table. At the time the players were
getting 57% of the revenue that the league had earned. The owners did not want this to
stay the same. The players wanted the league to change the policy on teams revenue
sharing. The way the league was at the end of the agreement many teams were in debt. It
got so bad that the Phoenix Coyotes, now Arizona Coyotes, filed for bankruptcy.
Some other changes the league wanted to make had to deal with free agency. They
wanted unrestricted free agents to have been 30 years old or have had 10 years of service
instead of the current 27 years old or 7 years of service. They also wanted to eliminate
salary arbitration and change the way that the salary cap was calculated. Another issue
the league wanted to change was max contracts. They wanted to put a cap on the amount
of years that team could sign a player. They wanted to make 5 years the longest a contract
could be. They also wanted these contracts to be distributed evenly over the 5 years. They
also wanted those contracts to have no signing bonus. The league did not have much

leeway after letting the Minnesota Wild sign Zach Parise and Ryan Suter to 13 year, $98
million frontloaded contracts a few months earlier.
After months of failed negotiations and cancelled games the NHL finally called a
lockout. The National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) now had a big
decision to make about decertifying the union or not. If the union decided to decertify
they then would have the opportunity to sue the NHL under anti-trust laws. Individual
players can sue the league under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which prohibits
combination in restraint of trade and provides triple damages in the event of violation. In
both the NFL and NBA lockout of 2011, the unions were decertified and antitrust suits
were filed by players in federal courts, (U.S. 8). This would not be the first time during
the lockout that players sued the NHL. They also tried to take the NHL to court in two
different providences in Canada. In the case that took place in Quebec, both the NHL and
NHLPA asked that the courts dismiss the case. In the other case, players for the
Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames sought to have the lockout declared illegal under
Alberta law. However, the NHL prevailed in this litigation, as the Alberta Labour
Relations Board ruled that the lockout of Oilers and Flames players could continue; the
board noted that declaring the lockout illegal in the province would not help the parties
reach an agreement, (U.S. 8). I agree with the brutal honesty of the Alberta Labour
Relations Board. If they declared the lockout illegal it would have just made negotiations
more hostile.
With time running out to save the season and more threats from the players to
enter into anti-trust litigations the two sides finally reached a settlement. The two sides
agreed to have all hockey related revenue to be split evenly. The players lost a large piece

of the revenue by giving up 7 percent. The deal was a 10 year deal and both sides have an
option to re-enter negotiations after 8 years.
The teams would play a shortened 48 game schedule. They teams would only play
teams that were in their conference. This did two things. It made road trips shorter in
distance and allowed for more back-to-back games. This helped the league finish around
their usual finish time. Some fans did not like this because if you lived out west you
would never be able to see stars like Crosby, Ovechkin, and Stamkos who all played in
the east. The same was true for teams in the east. They would never get to see the
dynamic duo of Toews and Kane or Zach Parise and Ryan Suter with their new team in
Minnesota.
The new CBA limited the length of player contracts. They went from not having a
limit to a limit of 7-8 years. The new agreement also included amnesty buyouts.
Amnesty buyouts which enable teams to waive unproductive players were adopted
by the NHL, and two amnesty buyouts are allowed ahead of the 2013-2014 or 2014-2015
season, (U.S. 9). This helped a lot of teams that were stuck in bad contracts and helped
relieve cap space after the cap was lowered. One of the more notable waives was by the
New York Islanders, who were able to waive Rick DiPietro who was constantly getting
hurt and under performing. He also had one of the longest contracts in NHL history at the
time. I think these buyouts were one of the good ideas in the CBA. You have to wonder if
players like Rick DiPietro tried to argue this or if they too thought it was time for a new
start.
One of the major changes that players wanted in the new agreement was to
increase revenue sharing between teams. The sharing would increase by $50 million

under the new CBA. This will help teams that are struggling to stay afloat. Some of the
teams that struggled were the sunbelt teams that Commissioner Gary Bettman added.
This brought more scrutiny to Gary Bettman who is not liked by many NHL fans. Many
didnt agree with his moves to expand the NHL. Many also do not like him because every
time negotiations with the CBA open up while he was the commissioner, the league has
locked the players out.
The new CBA also brought changes to the NHL draft lottery. The lottery normally
gave the bottom four teams in the league a chance at getting the first overall pick in the
draft. Now all teams that did not make the playoffs were given a chance at the first pick.
One of the main reasons teams wanted to do this was because of highly touted prospect
Connor McDavid. Connor McDavid, who currently plays in the Ontario Hockey League
(OHL) for the Erie Otters, has been called the best prospect since Sidney Crosby. The
2015 lottery followed these new odds. According to tsn.ca the worst team in the league
had a 20 percent chance of getting the first overall pick. The best non-playoff team had a
1 percent chance. For the 2015 lottery the worst team was the Buffalo Sabres and the best
team was the Boston Bruins. By having the worst record the Sabres were guaranteed one
of the first two picks. Teams that did not win the lottery could only fall one spot. The
third worst team, the Edmonton Oilers, won the lottery with an 11.5 percent chance of
winning.
One issue that was not addressed in this agreement at the time had to deal with the
Olympics. The league was unsure if it would let its players leave in the middle of a
season to play in the Olympic games, which were to take place in Sochi, Russia. It is
possible that no agreement will be reached ant the players will be forced to choose

between missing out on the Games and playing in violation of the Leagues orders, (32
NW. 10A). Eventually the league would agree to let players go to the Olympics in Sochi.
The NHL is trying to come up with ways to keep players from going to the next
Olympics. Efforts include the creation of the World Cup of Hockey that will take place in
2016. Numerous benefits to the NHL of hosting the World Cup include: the ability to
directly profit from broadcast, marketing, sponsorship and advertising fees; the
prevention of the hardships involved with pausing a season; and the full and total control
over all aspects of the tournament, (Jeffrey 230). The NHL obviously wants to take
advantage of the talented players that they have in their league. They also want to prevent
their talent from becoming tired or hurt in events that are not their own. This could take
value away from the hockey tournament in the Olympic Games, especially if the World
Cup is a success and is endorsed by NHL players. But could this lead to an anti-trust
litigation? If this course of action persists, the Leagues conduct of banning players from
the Olympics, but permitting them to attend the World Cup of Hockey, would violate
United States primary anti-trust legislation, the Sherman Act, (Jeffrey 231-232). The
Sherman Act prevents companys from being anticompetitive and taking actions toward
becoming a monopoly. I am not sure if this is a chance that the NHL wants to take.
Overall I felt that this agreement was pretty fair for both sides. The even split of
hockey related revenue just seems like a natural breakdown. Eventually some of the
money that the owners make from this deal will come back to the players through player
contracts. The increase in revenue sharing between teams should help the league become
stronger financially. It may take some time before we see some of the effects of the
agreement. Others we saw pretty fast. For instance, teams were quick to use their

amnesty buyouts. We also saw the Devils try to give Ilya Kovalchuk a deal longer than 8
years and the League denied it. These are just some of the major points in the new NHL
collective bargaining agreement. With these changes I hope to see my favorite sport grow
and become one of the most successful and entertaining leagues in the world.

Work Cited
22 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal 227. Retrieved from
www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
32 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 3A. Retrieved from
www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic
2015 NHL Draft Lottery odds. (2015, April 10). Retrieved from
http://www.tsn.ca/2015-nhl-draft-lottery-odds-1.235943
Collective Bargaining Agreement. (2012, September 16). Retrieved from
http://www.nhlpa.com/inside-nhlpa/collective-bargaining-agreement
The hockey lockout of 2012-13. (2013, July). Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/article/pdf/the-hockey-lockout-of-2012.pdf