Read on Twitter
Okay little rant about the NHL CBA. Disclaimer: I am a Lawyer but not a Labor Lawyer, nor an expert in CBAs. But general contract principles I understand.
The NHL, like the NBA, has since the lockouts featured a CBA that includes both a salary cap and a guaranty that players and owners each get a fixed percentage of Hockey Related Revenue. So if the League unexpectedly profits, players gain. If League unexpectedly loses, they lose
This leads to the players' hated mechanic of "Escrow" which holds back money from Players' salaries to ensure players get their exact proportion of the pie. And since the two sides have agreed to keep increasing the cap ahead of rises in profits, escrow takes away from players.
By contrast, compare MLB (as I'll be doing a bunch in this thread), with no fixed proportions, players are guaranteed their salaries, but if the league profits - as it has for years - they don't get any benefits. If it loses, they're also not affected.
COVID hit the US notably in March shutting down all sports seasons. This was an unexpected event no one anticipated when signing the last CBA, and no one can argue Leagues couldn't have shut down entirely as a result for the pandemic.
Leagues didn't want to do that. So they began to negotiate deals with players to try to make a season - a continuation for the NHL/NBA, a start of one for MLB - possible. For the NHL, TV contractual obligations, plus escrow for the players made that highly desirable.
MLB signed a deal with its players in March, guaranteeing them a portion of their salaries. It then tried to back away from the deal for months on end, but was stuck with the terms - WHICH did anticipate COVID and thus had to schedule the season starting in June.
Meanwhile, the NHL came to not only a deal to return to play, but a 4 year CBA extension in JULY, after MLB's mess and well after COVID became apparent. The NHL had no obligation to extend the CBA or adjust Escrow, but they did anyway and were contractually bound.
Okay Background over, sorry for the flood. NHL now wants to renegotiate these terms from July, claiming it can't afford them, and now leaks to NHL-friendly reporters that it can cancel the season if the players don't agree.
Can it? The answer is: Doubtful.
Can it? The answer is: Doubtful.
Again, not actually looking at the CBA clauses itself, but I'd be stunned if this was otherwise: The NHL can't try to argue COVID-19 is an unexpected Force Majeure event...because they signed the deal in JULY. COVID was already well apparent at that point!
Moreover, MLB had already signed an MOU like the NHL's (just not as permanent) and had a 3 month dispute over it due to changing COVID circumstances. All before the July CBA extension.
The situation was pretty easily foreseeable and they signed the CBA anyhow!
The situation was pretty easily foreseeable and they signed the CBA anyhow!
Again, there was no obligation on the NHL's part to enter into the July extension. There was no obligation to alter escrow rules in it, or to extend the CBA beyond COVID. But they did anyhow, despite COVID's situation being clear! They can't just back out.
As such, NHL has no grounds for entirely canceling the season, and if they do so or keep postponing indefinitely to the same effect, it's arguably (and to me pretty clearly) a wildcat lockout, which is a massive violation of labor laws that Courts won't let stand.
This is THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES - in fact even more blatant - MLB wound up giving up its dispute in June of last year: they knew a Court would rule against them. The NHL has even less ground to stand on.
It doesn't matter how much the teams and league are losing at this point, they're stuck. And sucks for them, that's how the mechanics they negotiated work.
/End Rant.
/End Rant.
