I like posts that have good debates or I like some of things the poster said. I might like yours since you had paragraphs and a thought out post. As you will see. I don’t agree with all of it.
Bettman has yet to repeal the rule for 16000 seats needed for an NHL arena. That seat limit jacks up the price for tax payers to pay their share for a big add arena. The owner will raise whatever they need to break even. Yes Bettman has a role to play in pricing out the average Joe.
Inflation, yeah that can be used against Bettman revenue growth since 97 as well. Let’s not delve too far into politics.
Edmonton can’t double the price because it’s a pretty small city. Owner doesn’t have much wiggle room for pricing out demand.
Yes if teams were run like Arizona, meaning unstable ownership for a decade and a GM that just sold off most of his big pieces… yeah, ticket prices would go down because no one would show up. Toronto being the exception because, Leaf fans are going to Leaf fan.
Seats/Arena funding:
I think the big issue isn't a forced arena size, it's that tax payers shouldn't need to pay for an arena in the first place. Hotel owners don't require massive inflows of public cash to set up their buildings, neither do developers that build sky scrapers.
These guys repaid a $360 million euro loan to build their stadium, 15.5 years prior to the loan actually being due. Granted they have some additional revenue avenues not available to NHL teams, but there was no public funding for this arena and you can get reasonably affordable tickets (assuming it's not a UCL match). I personally don't believe you need to have public funds in order to breakeven on these large capital projects, it's more that owners want to breakeven or have a payback period of less than 10 years. NA seems to be the only place where this insane requirement is put into widespread practice.
From a profitability stand point you are basically saying that despite the NHL's increased ad space and ticket prices, it's just to breakeven? Perhaps I misunderstood that part of your post, but I just don't see why this is one of the only sports that needs public investment and still has money issues. I think it's more likely that these billionaire owners, in most cases, run these teams like loss leaders, because owning the team is part of their brand (AEG/MLSE/etc) but also gives them huge tax breaks. IMO they use public funding to reduce the liability of owning the team and having a big decommissioning project in the future - with the exception of Toronto and NYR, these arenas are not really good long term investments. By having the cities own the arena's they can be free and clear to leave after the lease is up, which makes the city stuck in a perpetual cycle of hostage negotiation. If the team was stuck paying $2M in property tax every year out to infinity, they wouldn't be able to get in a room and threaten relocation unless they get more public funding when they need a new arena in 30 years.
At the end of the day, I think publicly funded arenas is more of leverage tactic in NA than a need to run the business profitably. The Oakland A's have no issues running a profitable (or at the very least, sustainable) business, they just don't win anything. In Canada, teams try to do both - max out spending, but also gouge the consumers because they have a monopoly on the city.
IMO all of these things are driven by the owners, not Bettman and I don't think he has any say in ticket prices, or care - as long as the revenue sharing is happening and no one is insolvent.
Edmonton:
We had quite strong attendance in our decade of darkness, though in most places you could be right since Canada is not really the norm for ticket pricing and demand NHL wide. What you're saying about Arizona, in my mind that comes down to a team/org knowing it's locality and what they can charge with respect to the product they are putting on the ice. Which is a process that should happen without any input from Bettman. If the team sucks and isn't selling, the owner and his marketing/sales teams should already be implementing new pricing or marketing strategies. Unless they have supremely poor governance. NHL games are like airplanes, once the schedule is set, you need to sell out, empty seats is an opportunity cost.
Inflation:
Revenue growth has been quite strong, has it not? The cap has risen substantially since it has been introduced. Revenue growth happens because ticket prices are being jacked up though. Is that the owners coping with inflation, or being greedy? Hard to really tell.
I just think the majority of these points fall back on owners - breaking even, liability, profit, etc. Not Bettman. Bettman cares more about big picture - keeping the TV deals increasing and more overall viewership, expanding to new and large markets, growing the game, etc. Owners just care about their little fifedom, and IMO they leave the vision and NHLPA BS to him.
