The Cap Should Be Over $100 Million Right Now. How Is The NHL going to handle the inevitable post-COVID cap rise?

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Pablo El Perro

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 10, 2007
24,849
13,101
I think these numbers originate from Forbes, But they aslo state. "incuding arena proceeds from non NHL events"
So who knows how much that is?
With some Southern teams, that can be a big chunk of revenue. In the dark times for the Panthers, non-nhl revenue was why a certain owner didn't care much about icing a competitive team for years. I'd guess concerts don't for revenue sharing.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,536
13,033
South Mountain
It'll never happen but in theory if the overall salaries were less than the mid point between the cap floor/ceiling then it should revert to reverse escrow where players get more than their contract amount.

It already has happened at least twice, maybe three times now as I’m suspecting the players received a boost for 2023-24. Haven’t seen final figures yet though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News

Larry Hanson

Registered User
Aug 1, 2020
1,920
3,415
It already has happened at least twice, probably three times now as I’m expecting the players receive a boost for 2023-24.
Really? what years?
Most of the teams are at or near the cap every year, the average would have to be closer to the floor than the ceiling.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,536
13,033
South Mountain
Compare to the NHL. Revenue has gone up 32% from 18-19 to 22-23 (pre/post COVID) in only 4 years. Yet the NHL cap has only gone up about 10.6%, versus 28% for the NBA. Even though the NHL has a higher increase in revenue.

The NFL cap has similarly increased by almost 29% in the same period of time (2020 versus today) including a record $35 million surge in the cap in the last season.

I'm sorry I know some people are going to twist themselves into a pretzel to say why this isn't a big deal, but I can't look at that and not feel like NHL players aren't getting totally hosed. NHL revenue is growing faster than the NBA, but the cap which is supposed to be tied to revenue is growing at about 1/3 the rate, lol.

At some point you are just abusing the "COVID emergency" excuse if you're the NHL.

Several important factors you may be overlooking:

A) The # of NHL teams increased from 31 to 32. Assuming an average revenue for Seattle that’s an “artificial 3.2%” revenue bump which doesn’t change the cap.

B) The players were routinely losing 10-12% of their paychecks to Escrow prior to Covid. The MOU instituted the cap lag formula to reduce Escrow. If the NHL and PA are successful in their goal to effectively eliminate Escrow that would essentially “remove” 10-12% of the revenue growth from the cap, instead purposing it to fix Escrow.

C) The non-salary benefits players receive has increased substantially with the 2020 MOU. The exact numbers aren’t public but I’d estimate 2-3% of additional HRR is now going towards those benefits vs pre-2020. Theses benefits count towards the players’ 50% share of HRR.

Those three categories tally up to 15-18% of the 32% NHL revenue growth you cite being eaten up, leaving a net 14-17% of revenue growth to increase the salary cap.
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
73,466
29,392
Several important factors you may be overlooking:

A) The # of NHL teams increased from 31 to 32. Assuming an average revenue for Seattle that’s an “artificial 3.2%” revenue bump which doesn’t change the cap.

B) The players were routinely losing 10-12% of their paychecks to Escrow prior to Covid. The MOU instituted the cap lag formula to reduce Escrow. If the NHL and PA are successful in their goal to effectively eliminate Escrow that would essentially “remove” 10-12% of the revenue growth from the cap, instead purposing it to fix Escrow.

C) The non-salary benefits players receive has increased substantially with the 2020 MOU. The exact numbers aren’t public but I’d estimate 2-3% of additional HRR is now going towards those benefits vs pre-2020. Theses benefits count towards the players’ 50% share of HRR.

Those three categories tally up to 15-18% of the 32% NHL revenue growth you cite being eaten up, leaving a net 14-17% of revenue growth to increase the salary cap.

Yeah I looked at the Seattle difference, the cap should still be over $100 million even now, just not quite as high (I believe the Reddit poster states it should be $104 mill cap or something against 6.6 billion project revenue). My estimate was around 102 million minus Seattle.

I don't think C is going to sway players on a lower cap.

B being the escrow that will be an issue but even on that I don't agree that the players are going to handcuff themselves to a massive lower cap ceiling for half a decade more.

Probably I can see something like the NHL allowing a 5.75% increase next year (they allowed 5.38% last year) and then the players agreeing to some setup where they get about 8% rise from there on for another two years.

That would bring them to $108 million, still likely below what the cap should be as revenue could likely be over $7 billion.

The NHL and players honestly deserve some props here for amount of revenue. $6.4+ billion for a league that doesn't have a huge US TV deal is really quite strong. The NBA is only $10.58 billion or thereabouts, the way people talk about the NBA you would think it's 3-4x the size of the NHL in revenue when that's not the case at all.

NBA players get paid so much more than NHL players too, now yes I recognize the NBA rosters are smaller (12 players generally) and it's a soft cap league, but still with the disparity in star salaries you would think the NBA was making 3-5x the NHL.

I think COVID actually helped the NHL, lol, the rampant inflation basically has cornered the NHL market to its premium customer base who are fairly wealthy and/or simply willing to spend a lot of money particularly for gate revenue.
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
73,466
29,392
I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but it's f***ing hilarious that a bench player on an NBA team like Riu Hachimura (for non-basketball purists, this is the equivalent of like a 3rd/4th line player), a guy who is not even in the top 100 NBA salaries makes more than any NHL player, lol.

For next season

Hachimura - $17 million
Matthews - $16.7 mill actual salary (13.25 mill cap hit)
MacKinnon - $15.7 mill actual salary
McDavid - $10 mill actual salary

I mean that's just laughable. I know the NBA is a higher revenue league but it's not *that* much higher revenue.

The top paid NHL player shouldn't be below the 100th paid NBA player. NBA players should definitely get more but that is ridiculous.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,536
13,033
South Mountain
I don't think C is going to sway players on a lower cap.

You’re misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with “swaying the players”. The NHLPA negotiated an increase in non-salary benefits in 2020, knowing those additional benefits are expressly part of the player 50% share and thus reduce total salary compensation available to the players and the salary cap.. The cap formula is fully defined in the CBA/MOU, subtracting non-salary benefits when calculating the cap.
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
73,466
29,392
You’re misunderstanding, this has nothing to do with “swaying the players”. The NHLPA negotiated an increase in non-salary benefits in 2020, knowing those additional benefits are expressly part of the player 50% share and thus reduce total salary compensation available to the players and the salary cap.. The cap formula is fully defined in the CBA/MOU, subtracting non-salary benefits when calculating the cap.

I don't think we can use the MOU from 2020 as a basis for anything. What specifically are the non-salary benefits?

There was a massive emergency situation in play at that time. The players to their credit basically did whatever the NHL told them to do and they wanted extra security at that time, because who even knew 2020 how long COVID would go on for.

I'm sure the NHL would love to operate under COVID like conditions forever while they make massive revenues and try to lock the players out of that revenue, I just don't see the NHLPA just going along with that.

There's just no way to spin that a 32% increase in revenue (some of the highest in pro sports) while there being only a 10.6% increase in the salary cap is A-OK. The players only tolerated that because of an emergency once in a century situation and frankly looking at other pro sports leagues, they kinda got taken to the cleaners.

My personal feeling is 8% increase coming out of the CBA in 25-26 is the minimum NHLPA will accept, followed by another 8% the next year (instead of the 5% that is there now) and if the NHL can get that they should probably take it and run. That would bring the cap to about $108 million for the 27-28 season.

5.5%-ish next year followed by two years at 8% isn't unreasonable. That may actually be low, I'm not sure if the NHLPA would agree to even that, but if the NHL can get that, they ought to take it and not make too much of a stink. The PA will probably want assurances around 9%-10% increase in cap, the cap has gone up by as much as 12.7% in some years, so it's hard to argue 9%-10% is unprecedented.
 
Last edited:

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,536
13,033
South Mountain
I don't think we can use the MOU from 2020 as a basis for anything. What specifically are the non-salary benefits?

There was a massive emergency situation in play at that time. The players to their credit basically did whatever the NHL told them to do and they wanted extra security at that time, because who even knew 2020 how long COVID would go on for.

I'm sure the NHL would love to operate under COVID like conditions forever while they make massive revenues and try to lock the players out of that revenue, I just don't see the NHLPA just going along with that.

There's just no way to spin that a 32% increase in revenue (some of the highest in pro sports) while there being only a 10.6% increase in the salary cap is A-OK. The players only tolerated that because of an emergency once in a century situation and frankly looking at other pro sports leagues, they kinda got taken to the cleaners.

The 2020 MOU is effectively the same as a new CBA. The only difference being instead of writing up a completely new CBA the NHL and PA instead agree to extend the existing 2013 CBA with a lot of modifications detailed in the 2020 MOU.

Non-salary benefits includes things like:
- health insurance (not just for the players but for their families as well),
- life insurance, for example Gaudreau’s CBA mandated life insurance policy is set to pay his family $7.5m
- Disability insurance, including post-playing career disabilities
- pension contributions (probably the biggest total amount of non-salary benefits)
- probably some other things I’m overlooking
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
29,281
11,084
Charlotte, NC
It already has happened at least twice, maybe three times now as I’m suspecting the players received a boost for 2023-24. Haven’t seen final figures yet though.

Crap, you’re right. The article that I read saying they were getting back half of the 6% was from March. The same writer (Seravelli) revised that in June to say they’re likely getting all of it back and might even get those top up payments.

He also mentioned that the last time that happened was 2011-12
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
73,466
29,392
The 2020 MOU is effectively the same as a new CBA. The only difference being instead of writing up a completely new CBA the NHL and PA instead agree to extend the existing 2013 CBA with a lot of modifications detailed in the 2020 MOU.

Non-salary benefits includes things like:
- health insurance (not just for the players but for their families as well),
- life insurance, for example Gaudreau’s CBA mandated life insurance policy is set to pay his family $7.5m
- Disability insurance, including post-playing career disabilities
- pension contributions (probably the biggest total amount of non-salary benefits)
- probably some other things I’m overlooking

The 2020 MOU was written with a gun to players' heads, they really had no bargaining power because COVID was completely unprecedented, there was even questions about how well the vaccines would work at that time and who knows when fans would be allowed back into arenas.

A lot of people on this board didn't think there would be any kind of season period in 2020 at all, I remember I think I suggested a bubble city in Edmonton for summer 2020 and a lot of people here thought the idea was crazy.

I really wonder too if these so-called bonuses are worth what the NHL claims in the long run. NBA players get medical coverage for life for example for every player that plays 3 years and they get much better salaries. NBA players also get life insurance and a very generous pension. How much better is the NHL package and how much % of their revenue are NHL players supposed to give up.

I don't think you can expect the PA to be as timid with the next CBA. Everyone and their grandma knows COVID is over, the NHL cannot use that to bully the PA into giving away massive chunks of revenue owed to them anymore. The only way that's going to work is if there's another virus and even in the extremely low chance of that happening, I don't think you'll get compliance on everything again.
 
Last edited:

KevinRedkey

12/18/23 and beyond!
Jan 22, 2010
10,403
5,638
Well we live 2 hours away from LA so gas is considerably more, I have a long bed truck so parking is limited and expensive, I’m not going to a game 2 hours each way, not to sit center lower level. So yeah you’re as wrong as you could get.

So you're unwilling to make the drive in your gas guzzler. You're also begging for premium seats at a bargain price.

But yes, it's the NHLs fault your kids don't like hockey. Absolutely pathetic.
 

Soundwave

Registered User
Mar 1, 2007
73,466
29,392
So you're unwilling to make the drive in your gas guzzler. You're also begging for premium seats at a bargain price.

But yes, it's the NHLs fault your kids don't like hockey. Absolutely pathetic.

In fairness to the guy, it was suggested that $320 USD was a pretty good "budget" price, lol, I mean that's a lot of money for a lot of households for a few hours of entertainment.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad