I haven’t posted here in over two years, so it was probably pretty obvious to anyone who cared to notice that this blog is closed. I never officially closed it, though, and this lockout situation seems like a good time to do so.
I was inspired to post by NHLer Krys Barch’s interesting stream of tweets last night, in which Barch, one of the NHL’s non-star players, outlined the frustrations of the league’s low-paid slave class. His tweets are a good read, certainly more literary than one might expect.
But his argument? Yeah, not so much.
Barch points out that not every player makes the same kind of salary as Sidney Crosby or Ilya Kovalchuk. Of course, this is true. As I understand it, however, part of the players’ argument for why they should receive what they perceive as their fair share of hockey-related revenues is that people pay to see them, not the owners. Well, I’m pretty sure more people pay to see Kovalchuk than Barch. No doubt Krys Barch would agree with this assessment.
Another complaint relates to injuries: this too has been a constant refrain from the players. “I wonder how many bones Gary Bettman has broken in his job,” they say. Well, probably not many, likely because Gary Bettman did not decide to become a pro-athlete in a dangerous sport. As Brent Sopel might point out, the players chose this profession with full knowledge of the risks they were taking. I’m not saying I have no sympathy for Barch’s aches and pains; I’ve dealt with chronic health issues and it’s not fun. Nor am I saying the league shouldn’t look at ways to reduce head injuries and the like (though I also think the players may have a role to play in this, for example by not hitting each other in the head as much). But it seems to me, wear and tear on the body is part of what these guys signed up for.
Now. Let’s take a look at the numbers which are the crux of Barch’s argument. Krys Barch’s current contract with New Jersey would pay him $750,000 for the 2012-2013 season (should it be played) and the same amount for 2013-2014. Last season, he made $850,000. The seasons before that: $850,000, $575,000, and $575,000. (Numbers from CapGeek.) That means, over the course of these six years, his average salary is $725,000. I am not an accountant and I have no idea how much of that he would pay in taxes, but for argument’s sake, let’s say he pays 35% (the rate for people making more than about $375,000) in US federal taxes, and 8.97% (the rate for people making over $500,000 in New Jersey) in state taxes. That leaves him with about $406,217.50 after taxes. Call it $400,000.
For comparison, the median after-tax household income for a Canadian family in 2010 was $65,500. Household, not individual. So even if Barch’s wife is unemployed, their family still takes in, on average, 610% of what the median Canadian family does. Six hundred percent. Oh horrors! However do they survive on this pittance!?
Looked at another way, it would take many Canadian families about six years to make what Krys Barch might take home in a year. Of course, how much money, if any, Barch makes this season or next is still up in the air. But we know that in the last four years, he’s pulled in about 24 years’ worth of a median Canadian family’s income. His claim that he and his fellow below the NHL poverty line players “will have to work for the next 50 years of their lives” post-retirement thus rings a little hollow. And even if they did have to face the indignity of taking on regular jobs after retiring from the NHL at the ripe old age of 35, how is that different from my life or yours or anyone else’s?
In other words, boo frickin’ hoo.
So my message to NHL players is this: stop bitching about the owners’ five houses and cigars. In a war of rich guy vs. richer guy, YOU ALL LOOK LIKE ASSHOLES.
