Eight years after the NHL lost an entire season to a lockout, players and owners alike find themselves in a similar situation. Just like in 2004, one of the major talking points surrounding the collective bargaining agreement is money.
The owners are proposing another change in the sharing of revenues. The players currently receive 57 percent of the revenue. Owners wish to, once again, cut the amount of revenue that players receive. The reasoning behind changing the revenue sharing is to help struggling teams.
Cutting player salaries again will only hurt the league as a whole.
If our salaries get slashed, I'll have to think about whether to return to NHL. [I] won’t rule out staying in Russia past this season.
Capitals fan or not, Ovechkin is one of the NHL's biggest stars. Who knows what other NHL superstars share the same sentiment.
Obviously, losing games to the lockout is bad for business. What if other big names decide not to return to the NHL if it means getting paid less? That can't be good for business, either.
The KHL has welcomed NHL players with open arms and have made it clear they're welcome to stay past the lockout. There is a good amount of hockey professionals that prefer the KHL to the NHL as it is. Aside from a more free-flowing playing style, players can make similar money playing for the bigger franchises and are taxed less than they would be in the US or Canada.
In this respect, do you think a rollback in player salaries could hurt the NHL more than help it?
Ovechkin's concerns are legitimate. The NHL could be forcing some of its best talent out the doors to other leagues.
Is the owners taking a larger share of the revenue to help struggling teams worth losing superstars like Ovechkin? If other stars follow him, a CBA that gives owners a larger share of revenues could very much hurt the league more than help it.
After all, what is the NHL without its stars?