ANALYSIS : NHL Players Lose Sight of Reason

What began as a struggle over economics has become an emotional battle by Bob Goodenow, executive director of the NHL Players Assn.

Creating a rallying point is fine, especially when so many of the issues are difficult to grasp. But in igniting players’ passion, Goodenow is giving short shrift to reason.

Goodenow has inspired a fight over an issue few players understand: the NHL’s proposed payroll tax. It is the one issue on which the union refuses to budge. The one issue keeping NHL rinks dark, yet it is the last issue that should stand in the way of an agreement.

So strong is players’ fixation about the evils of even a modest payroll tax, they have contorted themselves into pretzels to avoid it. Each time owners have mentioned the tax and dared them to offer another way to slow salary growth, players have forfeited something significant.

It’s an astonishing series of concessions, beginning with their surrender on pay scales for rookies and entry-level players. Those salaries become the basis for the paychecks of mid-career and veteran players, so everyone will eventually feel the pinch.

“It’s the longest list of givebacks in sports,” a player agent said.

The delegation sent by NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman to meet union representatives 10 days ago floated the idea of dropping the tax if players would relinquish most of their arbitration rights. That created hope for a compromise, but it is flickering.

When lawyers from each side tried to schedule talks today, Goodenow relayed word that if the NHL intends to keep the tax or to seek major changes in arbitration, he had nothing to talk about. They might not meet Tuesday, either.

It’s absurd. Why not meet to see what can be done?

Each is waiting for the last instant to make his best offer. At this rate, neither will.

Players have conceded more to avoid the tax than they would have given up had they accepted a moderate levy two months ago. Salary arbitration would benefit more players in more ways than a payroll tax would hurt them.

Players claim the tax will be a cap and deter owners from paying high salaries. They contend once owners get a tax, the rate would rise with each collective bargaining agreement and that owners such as Chicago’s Bill Wirtz and New Jersey’s John McMullen will never exceed the cap. Salaries would decline.

Maybe not.

It’s impossible to believe those owners--or any others--would refuse to acquire a top-notch player his club needs because that salary would lift the payroll over the limit and trigger a tax assessment. Even NHL owners, though sometimes devious and often foolish, know a good player makes the team better, and a better team will draw more fans and perhaps play an extra round in the playoffs. That could bring in enough revenue to more than recoup the tax assessment.

A luxury tax is a punitive tax intended to discourage a purchase. An example is the luxury tax that was assessed on boats and was later rescinded because it hurt that industry so much. Compare that to the 10% levy assessed on cars that cost more than $32,000. The amount due is based on the difference between $32,000 and the total price, not on the total price.

If the NHL’s payroll tax is levied on the amount spent over a limit, it might inhibit spending, but it won’t prohibit spending. If you can afford a Mercedes-Benz, you can probably afford the tax. If it is assessed on every dollar of the payrolls that go over a limit, it would be like paying twice for one car and curtail spending.

The answer is a graduated tax that kicks in at a trigger point--rather than on the entire payroll--and contains a provision to adjust the rate depending on the amount revenues and salaries rise next season.

If players continue to reject a tax, they’ll have to yield on salary arbitration and accept 31 as the age for unrestricted free agency instead of 30. They went on strike in 1992 to get salary arbitration; to give it back would be foolish. So would accepting a higher age for free agency.

Exceptional players will always be paid high salaries. It’s the average, mid-career players who need protection. Those are the players the union would shortchange if it gives back arbitration rights to avoid a tax.

Bettman wanted to stop the growth of salaries paid to players in their first and second contracts. The union agreed to a rookie cap and to a pay scale and two-way contracts for players in their first three seasons, trading controls on youngsters’ salaries for unrestricted free agency later. It’s not a great trade.

Everyone passes through rookie and entry-level stages, but not everyone is still playing at 31 and skilled enough to draw big offers as a free agent. Players would be eligible for arbitration before then, but such awards will be two-year contracts, not the long, lucrative deals players think free agency will spawn.

If Goodenow decides he’d lose too much respect if he accepted a tax, his only alternative is to agree to a demand that clubs have the right to walk away from one or two arbitration awards they consider too high for Group 2 (middle-range) players. That defeats the purpose of arbitration.

The union has already handed over its wallet. The NHL wants its pocket change too. Bettman must modify the tax. Goodenow must put players’ long-term prospects ahead of the short-term embarrassment of losing face. If there is no agreement and no season, the damage will be incalculable.