Unintended consequences?
An interesting question was raised during the on-going debate about whether or not major junior hockey players deserve to be paid minimum wage.
If it ever happens — and that, of course, is to be settled in court — would it make the on-ice product more competitive?
Will it prevent teams like the London Knights from pursuing a fifth Memorial Cup in six years the way they are right now? The answer is probably not. In fact, it will likely increase the advantage of the affluent teams.
If you look at the analysis of the league’s financial records done by sports finance scholar Dr. Norm O’Reilly, his report suggests that a minimum wage policy would “put significant financial pressure” on many of the franchises.
One of his points is many clubs would have to consider cutting operating expenses and player benefits to offset the additional costs.
Well, teams like the Knights, Kitchener Rangers and Windsor Spitfires aren’t going to do that.
There is still a recruitment battle — especially for American players — between the OHL and NCAA programs.
Every junior organization has to show their drafted kids, most of whom are also visiting Division I schools, they have similar weight rooms, support personnel and just as many, if not more, opportunities to improve as the U.S. college route.
If your workout facility consists of a heavy bag and burnt-out light bulb because you’re just squeaking by doling out an extra of the estimated $300,000 per year in player salaries, then let’s face it, you better get comfortable in last place.
The clout of the Canadian Hockey League in the puck world is built on producing the most NHL talent and remaining the No. 1 pipeline to the pros.
That reputation must be protected at all costs because there’s so much money and political ties involved it in.
If it’s suddenly dropped down to No. 2, the league will see less development payments, potentially a weaker deal with the NHL next time around and a smaller voice at a further away table in discussions with Hockey Canada and the International Ice Hockey Federation.
O’Reilly mentions if times get really tough in a minimum-environment, some of the 20 current teams would have to consider going out of business.
Some of you might even cheer about it, if it’s not the team in your city facing the chopping block.
It’s the old NHL argument — if there were six or 12 less teams, the hockey should be better.
But in the junior ranks, say four teams bite the dust, that’s 20 less players getting a shot at powerplay time and eight more goalies (Canadian and American, since European stoppers are banned) losing their chance to develop and getting a shot to advance to the highest level.
It wouldn’t be apocalyptic with fewer teams or franchises relocating. After all, the OHL I grew up watching and fell in love with 30-odd years ago had 12 clubs at the time.
No matter how it shakes out, the popular belief is the players deserve more. No one can argue with that fact.
They don’t just play, today’s skaters are ambassadors for their team’s brand. They generate goodwill in the community through public appearances, school and hospital visits and even agree to stand in front of advertisementplastered fake walls while conducting interviews.
I’m not sold on the minimumwage push.
But I do believe the money that goes into the league’s “best” school package scholarship program should be guaranteed — no strings attached and no grey areas.
If an OHL player decides a postsecondary education is not for him — and it isn’t for everyone — he should be paid out the cash equivalent of what he earned for his OHL service.
Hopefully, he uses it as a down payment on a house or some sort of investment, but it’s his choice.
And if a cap must be put on a player’s pro pursuits to get the scholarship, then make it five or six years, not eighteen months.
Will teams go under with that commitment hanging overhead?
Maybe, but those that can’t afford a little more for the players are in the wrong business, anyway.