Adam Bornstein Prof Brock Eayrs Writing 2215F 5 December 2012 NHL VS NHLPA on the CBA: A Rhetorical Analysis

Abstract: This is an academic essay that I wrote for a writing course for my in third year. The course dealt heavily with rhetorical analysis and the final assignment asked us to compile a set of rhetorical contributions aimed at both sides of a conflict and analyze their worth on a technical level. Having chosen the NHL lockout, which was currently ongoing while I wrote this, I was able to add a secondary level of analysis as I noted how the different speakers and their choice of medium affected the various forms of rhetoric. Long before the LA Kings raised the Stanley Cup this past June, executives and lawyers of both the National Hockey League (NHL) and National Hockey League Players Association (NHLPA) had begun to formulate proposals and arguments for their desired improvements and demands to the new Contract Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Despite the past seven NHL seasons having been an era of new and fantastically successful hockey, the drama of the last CBA and the industrys reputation for stubbornness on both sides of bargaining table foreshadowed a problematic situation. The current CBA would expire on September 15th 2012, making the signing of a new one an exigence marked by urgency. An unsigned CBA would create a discontinuity in league operations and call a rhetorical situation into being. Having not resolved this issue in time, the NHL was forced to lockout its players and cancel regular season games; consequently propelling this exigence into the next stage of its life cycle. Now, with the lockout having eclipsed day 80, a qualitative rhetorical analysis of articles, tweets, comments, and Facebook pictures will help to provide a distinct examination of this rhetorical situation. As we will see, the topic is complicated by several factors,

Bornstein 2 including: how participants and the public are defined, the varying constraints of communication mediums utilized to disseminate rhetoric, and finally, the diverse levels of technical rhetoric observed by different speakers. This analysis will further reveal, through the complexities of sport media, that it was the ineffective and illegitimate use of rhetoric on both sides of the bargaining table that forced and continue to push this exigence beyond the appropriate time in its lifecycle for a solution to be had. To begin to define this rhetorical situation we must first examine its participants. The NHL represents the 30 team-owners and their board of governors, while the NHLPA consists of numerous players along with their respective executives. Although the issues themselves can be explained simply in a way that is easily understandable, the rhetoric of the official proposals is not only kept private but are lengthy hundred page documents complicated by highly technical and legal language. Because of this, the larger groups of players and owners involved have been forced to lean on four men (NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly for the NHL, and Donald and Steve Fehr for the NHLPA) to speak on their behalf and to communicate the complex jargon involved in negotiations to them in a way that can be best understood. Like professional athletes, the majority of the fans and public that are interested in staying informed on the situation also find it overly complicated and are forced to rely on the sports reporters, like TSNs Bob McKenzie, to make sense of the issues for them as well. Before we dive into those issues we must first properly define the speakers involved relative to their position within the situation. Although the exigence of signing a new CBA affects an immense amount of people (from owners to players, fans to occasional viewers, and hockey staff such as coaches to arena staff such as concession

Bornstein 3 stand workers) the audience that the NHL and NHLPA address in their proposals is limited to each others organization and more specifically to the few people in the negotiating room who have both an interest in resolution and the ability to act towards influencing it. Therefore, even though the coverage and commentary of these private discussions is disseminated over Twitter, Facebook, TSN.ca, and NHL.com to fans and the general public, one must not be mislead by this wrongful inclusion of people outside the defined public. Rather, one may develop a better understanding for the depth of this topic because it is only in analyzing the rhetorical discourse aimed at the general public so it may be (by the NHL, its players, and reporters) that we may properly examine the arguments that exist within the properly defined public. I mean not to disregard fans entirely, but we will examine the entirety of their role later on. In this way we look to Bob McKenzies articles not as a speaker participating in the rhetorical situation but as a public representative of the situation as it pertains to both the NHL and NHLPA respectively. In Fear, Loathing, and I cant believe were doing this again, a blog posted on September 10th only 5 days before the previous CBA would expire McKenzie does a great job of not only outlining the several points of stasis amongst the new CBA proposals, but the reasoning for both sides. The NHL proposed a CBA that would have the Hockey Related Revenue (HRR) sharing be changed from the previous 57% for the NHLPA be adjusted to 43% in the first year of the deal. The enthymeme or deductive reasoning behind this claim, as McKenzie logically explains the NHL concern in that since the last CBA was signed, not only have contracts being increased but also the costs and responsibilities associated with running the business have also. Since these costs and responsibilities are solely those of the NHL, (as bluecowboy

Bornstein 4 commenter mathematically points out for Bob) even though revenue has increased at a rate of 5.96% a year, costs have increased at a rate of 8.6% per year resulting in the owners loss of 2.7% a year. The NHL proposed HRR reduction would therefore fairly accommodate this. The NHLPA offered their own proposal that was seen as a creative strategy to not only ensure solutions to other points of contention within the leagues economics but would also ensure the players a fair share of the projected growth of HRR. Here is where the dichotomy begins and the two arguments are unable to even relate, never mind be discussed and solved. This is due to different meanings that have emerged and are relative to the respective parties. Although the NHLs argument flows logically, the players (and fans) retort with a solid objection that draws out a presupposed assumption. Most of the operating costs that have resulted in losses for the NHL are due to their incessant furthering of their agenda to grow hockey in foreign markets such as the Southern United States. As commenters have pointed out to bolster McKenzies analysis of the NHLPAs rebuttal, the NHL spent so much to maintain franchises like Phoenix, whereas Atlantas relocation to Winnipeg is proof that there are economically efficient ways of capitalizing on HRR. The players view this strategy as the owners agenda alone, and therefore do not see fit to be personally penalized for their unprofitable management when more financially options remain viable across Canada. They are also not in favour of the NHLs proposal because it would involve them repossessing money that they have already promised to players in contracts. Therefore the players have defined the situation as one of equality and fairness where they should receive what is due to them and not a penny less. They have defined

Bornstein 5 the parameters that they will argue within as those based on merit, character, and principle; whereas, the NHL has a very different idea and definition of the situation. The NHL sees itself as the boss. It employs the players and so has authority and control over them. They own the business and believe the players are lucky to even have a fraction of the revenue. As one fan argues in McKenzies comment section, does the fry cook at McDonalds deserve a share of the corporations revenue? I think not. It is this very different core ethic and belief that has forced the two sides into a stale mate and arrested any potential negotiations. Because of this, both sides began to take up unilateral arguments that would not allow either side to effectively respond to each other. Both sides were drawing a line in the sand and not negotiating and keep asking for things (Crosby, The Canadian Press). Reporter Darren Dreger tweeted quotes from Daly that read: unfortunately, we have determined we are involved with Union leadership that has no genuine interest in reaching an agreement. This aspect of negotiating is futile for effective rhetoric, as it does not seek to find a solution. It is demonstrative in nature rather than deliberative discourse that is needed for this situation to see a resolution. Both parties need to be willing to observe self-risk. If neither is willing to consider that the other may be right then no progress will ever be made. The NHL made a strong unilateral statement by ignoring the NHLPA offer to continue negotiations during the regular season and instead forced a lockout. This is a one directional ploy that cannot be fairly rebutted by the players but instead stands as an act of coercion. This is understood by the fans and represented in the meme below:

Bornstein 6

(Picture of Bettman as Howe Mandel from show Deal or No Deal) The league only wanted 12% of the players contracts in rollbacks but they threatened to take 100% if they would not settle for their proposal and risk losing the entire season. This is irresponsible rhetoric because it does not allow a fair counter as it has forced the players into a tough position. Secondly they reflected an even further unilateral self by employing a week inductive argument of similitude. As seen in McKenzies same article, the NHL likened itself and its situation the NBA and the NFL where revenue sharing between owners and players is closer to 50/50. The leagues are very different however, they both gross much more money and have the same if not smaller operating costs, to the comparison is somewhat invalid. Then the NHLPA had their turn, specifically; players began to vocalize in media scrums and on twitter. However their unilateral arguments came in the form of ad hominem. On September 29th, in a drunken rant on twitter, NHL player Krys Bach let loose on Bettman and Daly. He said that theyre never having been hockey players themselves makes them inadequate in handling the sport and the owners rich lifestyle makes them not care about ruining the game. We pause here to analyze the effects of the mediums that are being utilized. First of all, Twitter is an interesting new asset to the realm of rhetorical discourse. As

Bornstein 7 mentioned before, it is broadcast to a large public all over the world that stretches far beyond the defined public of its content. Secondly, it is constrained by a 144 character limit, which some choose to subvert by posting multiple tweets although it has a large effect on the tweets dissemination and reception. The Twitter-sphere as it has been referred to, is a place where everyone has a voice and because of this prevalence of media and talk it can affect the publicity principle of the rhetorical situation. The media commentary and opinions does have an affect on what goes on inside the negotiating room and so leaked, secret information that is blasted over the internet can have a bad effect (see Steve Otts tweet). Twitter is also where popular voices are followed for popular reasons. Because of this, the quality and seriousness of tweets have a highly differing nature. A respectable TSN analyst can seriously tweet logic and have his message received as news whereas a professional athlete can drunkenly tweet emotions and have his message received or accepted in the same way. By no means does this change the definition or application of proper or effective rhetoric however it does mark a change in what an audience is willing to accept. The fans are easily swayed to join the NHLPA in hating the NHL and its commissioner because of illogical reasons. As seen by the meme below:

(Fan wearing Jersey with Bettmans name and middle finger as number)

Bornstein 8 As superstars they have achieved an exceptional ethos and when they employ emotional appeals like Barch on top of that, their arguments have an effective and resounding effect. Like the lockout, it too is unethical and immoral use of unilateral argument, however equally as effective in this new social network. However some fans still side with the owners and make their opinions felt on Facebook like with this meme:

Here we see the similitude of two people and the way they behave towards work and money. The drastic comparison is to show how greedy and selfish pro athletes are for squabbling over the millions of dollars they get for playing a game, when there are thousands of troops fighting for freedom on a salary that is borderline poverty. The athletes are aware of this and are trying to respond to these arguments. Again in the Canadian Press, Sidney Crosby reiterates their stance: It doesn't have anything to do with (money); it's the rights of players within your profession so that's what I think guys are definitely going to stand strong on. It's ridiculous to try change that after the success the league and everybody's had here the last seven or eight years. Other players like Paul Bissonnette and Adam Proteau also voiced their rebuttals to these accusations reiterating that they have no problem settling for a lower HRR share if the NHL is fair and gives them what they were promised.

Bornstein 9 Now we can discuss the role the fans truly play. Aside from contributing rhetorical discourse in both meme and tweet form the fans play an integral part to the process and lifecycle of the exigence. Firstly, by having no games to attend their funding to individual franchises is removed. Furthermore, if they become truly disgusted with the league or its players through rhetorical discourse by either or by third parties, they will choose to not spend their money on the NHL when if and when it does return. In the photograph below we see an example of one such fan:

Clearly at a basketball game, this fan is no longer spending his money on hockey because of the lockout. And the longer the lockout continues, the more fans there will be just like this one, effectively stifling the growth of the newly over successful NHL that has increased revenue by over 50% since the previous lockout. This factor has continued to severely affect negotiations as therefore the lifecycle of the rhetorical situation. Without a doubt it was with the September 15th expiry of the old CBA and the declaration of a lockout that moved the rhetorical situation from origin to maturity. At this point the NHLs last offer (which included the last possibility for a full 2012-13 season) came out, as outlined in Bob McKenzies 2nd blog post; McKenzie: Jeopardy! The NHL Labour Strife Edition. The NHL was willing to meet the NHLPA half way with a 50/50 Make Whole deal however the players where still not only opposed to

Bornstein 10 receiving less money than they had previously as well as having the new HRR sharing ratio implemented immediately. Progress did not come until later on when effective rhetoric began to enter the discussion. The NHL began to address the arguments and concerns of the NHLPA however unfortunately this came after the time for saving the season had elapsed. After the games had been cancelled, the league realized that the immediate blow of the HRR reduction was a major stasis and so they addressed this by not only offering to ease the blow by implementing the reduction over a period of two years, but they also offered to make up the salary difference out of their own pocket to ensure that the players not miss out what they would have gotten until the growth factor can surpass that mark at the new 50/50 rate. However at this point, it still was not enough because the majority of both sides proposals where based on a projected growth rate. This growth rate could no longer be counted or estimated because of the increasingly negative impact the lockout is having on fans and consumers. McKenzie states: Id even go so far as to suggest that is the NHLs revised Make Whole provision had been presented to the players a month ago, maybe even a couple weeks ago, we would indeed be a lot closer to a deal. The effect of the lifecycle has such a major impact on the ability to resolve the situation. [] But the NHL didnt make that offer on Oct. 16 and now the landscape has changed. And so we remain in lockout with negotiations going into a deep freeze but the sad part is that it is only over one simple premise. Only the one HRR stasis is holding these two organizations back from quickly and easily solving this CBA debacle. The rest of the points of contention are very simple and argued quite elementarily. The system stasis of back diving contracts for example. McKenzie explains that it is a large issue for the league because it subverts the point of a salary cap and leaves little incentive for a

Bornstein 11 player to finish his contract. They proposed to limit contract length to 5 years however the rebuttal is to simply impose a 5% variance limit to ensure that the contract cannot be weighted to unevenly. Or the stasis around the issue of contract rights for entry-level players and how many years they have to wait for arbitration. The league wants this to ensure that contracts are not driven too high by the natural market and high demand for young stars. The NHLPA will have little to no objection because it isnt a matter of players losing money. The cap and therefore spending will remain the same so it only works to more fairly distribute the players money amongst more contracts especially favouring veterans. As this analysis of the CBA rhetorical situation concludes we can now have a clearer view of the complex nature of sport media and rhetorical discourse that has outlined negotiations and public opinion. By entering into argumentation with two very different definitions of the situation the NHL and NHLPA were left in a stalemate until they were able to have more similar definitions emerge. Before that happened however, their frustrations led to the use of unilateral and illegitimate forms of rhetoric such as coercion and ad hominem. A careful definition of the public allows us to view fans and social networkers in their true place, although still appreciating the impact their increasing distaste for the NHL has on the negotiations. Observing the discourse as it becomes effective is also relevant especially in terms of how it is affected by the lifecycle of the situation. Finally we were able to unveil the simple and effective rhetoric that underlines the major HRR stasis and see how quickly this exigence can be resolved once the two organizations can solve their greatest issue.

Bornstein 12 Case File / Resources Sidney Crosby Article: Crosby Holds His Ground on CBA Frustration, Contract Issues http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409415# All Memes and Pictures from NHL Memes Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/NHL-Memes/244528182305805?fref=ts Bob McKenzie Articles: Fear, Loathing and I cant believe were doing this again: http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=404989 McKenzie: Jeopardy! The NHL Labour Strife Edition http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=407263 On Day 57, Do You Know Where Your CBA Is? http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/bob_mckenzie/?id=409277 Tweets: From twitter.com, screenshots below

Bornstein 13

Bornstein 14