Sell to anybody you like, as long as we're the buyer
Here’s something I don’t get. Why hasn’t anybody pointed out the giant conflict of interest the NHL has entered by placing its own bid for the Phoenix Coyotes while it requires that all bids for the franchise receive its stamp of approval? While we’re at it, if the NHL has the right to reject all other potential bidders, why doesn’t the NHL lower its bid to a dollar?
I won’t pretend to know what would result if Jim Balsillie’s bid is rejected and he files an antitrust lawsuit against the league as threatened. Antitrust law as it applies to professional sports has very little to say on the matter. In 1980, Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis sued the NFL for the right to move the Raiders to Los Angeles and won. That’s about it.
Yet there is no doubt that at the very least, insofar as the protection of the game it represents is concerned, the NHL ought to be given the reserve power to prevent a team from relocating. Needless to say, teams like Edmonton and Minnesota (North Stars included) shouldn’t be moving without very good reason. But it should be a reserve power only: the league should be required to produce a good reason why a team shouldn’t move, rather than the opposite.
That’s something that hasn’t happened in the case of the Coyotes. The league has yet to explain—convincingly—why the franchise hasn’t been given enough chances in the desert. So far, the league has advanced two arguments to support its position: first, that the Coyotes could become solvent in the future, if they started winning; and second, that Balsillie’s demonstrated character makes him unfit to own a hockey team.
Now, it’s entirely true that the Coyotes could become solvent. The league has cited, in court, Buffalo, Ottawa, and Pittsburgh as examples of franchises that rebounded from bankruptcy after they started winning. But hold it a second: what Pittsburgh really needed was a new arena, and Buffalo had the misfortune of being owned by multi-billion dollar fraudster John Rigas. As for Ottawa, the league doesn’t know what it’s talking about; the Senators won the President’s Trophy the same year the franchise filed for bankruptcy. Attendance wasn’t a problem either; while they didn’t sell out on a nightly basis, average attendance that year was a fairly healthy 17,000+. In short, the market was never the problem; mismanagement was.
| “ | … it is difficult to understand how an owner who doubles as a passionate fan can be anything but positive | ” |
Not so for the Coyotes. Last week’s preseason opener against Los Angeles drew a paltry 4600 spectators—even by preseason standards, an abysmal turnout. And so while the NHL argues that the Coyotes could become solvent, at some hypothetical point in the future, it continues to sidestep the question of whether the Phoenix area will become a viable hockey market. So far, it appears that the league has no intention of addressing the latter question, to its own detriment and to that of the game itself.
As for Balsillie’s character, it ought to be irrelevant. Anybody with the financial capability and who can pass a criminal background check should be allowed to become an NHL owner. Granted, his tactics (especially with respect to his previous pursuit of the Penguins) have earned him a certain amount of dislike, but all things considered, Balsillie’s only crime has been to be passionate—and occasionally aggressive—hockey fan, an aspiring Mark Cuban of sorts. And considering that the league has previously allowed a loan fraudster to own a stake in the Nashville Predators, it has no claim whatsoever to the moral high ground.
The NHL has failed to demonstrate why the proposed sale of the Coyotes to Balsillie should not go ahead. And furthermore, it is difficult to understand how an owner who doubles as a passionate fan can be anything but positive for the league. Undoubtedly, Jim Balsillie will continue to be Canada’s most popular billionaire for the foreseeable future.
As the world’s foremost ambassador of the game of hockey, the NHL has an obligation to act in the best interests of the game; perhaps not a fiduciary duty, but an obligation nonetheless. And that’s something Gary Bettman has yet to understand: it’s not his game; it’s our game. Bettman is just a steward of the game. And to paraphrase a venerable fictional wizard: “Authority is not given to you to deny the return of the Jets – steward!”