Roenick: NHL contraction “would be better for the game”
Forbes released their latest valuations of each NHL franchise and it reinforced what is already common knowledge: the gap between rich and poor teams in the NHL is huge.
It’s a central area of concern for the NHL, especially seeing as the salary cap and floor forces every team to stay relatively close when it comes to player salaries.
The question is how should the NHL fix that, and Jeremy Roenick thinks part of the answer might be contraction, according to the Courier-Post.
“There are 30 teams and there are some places that can’t hold teams,” Roenick said. “That kind of weakens the economy of the whole National Hockey League. Maybe diluting a couple of the teams and diluting a little of the talent would make it an even stronger league.”
Roenick isn’t alone in his beliefs. University of North Texas economist Todd Jewell expressed the same sentiment in a recent Globe and Mail report.
“You’ve got to get rid of some of these teams with so little public support that can’t exist without subsidies from the rest of the league,” said Jewell. “I just don’t think the National Hockey League can survive with as many teams as it has in the southern states.”
Of course, a player would look at the elimination of a team and likely see it as the elimination of jobs. Roenick realizes that and knows the union would never agree to a solution that resorted to contraction.
“It’s easy for me to say as a star player,” Roenick said. “That would never happen, but it would be better for the game.”