NHL players must decide between principle and pay

• Players could be giving up $1.6 billion over the course of the deal
• If they lose a season, they'd lose $1.8 billion in salaries
• Owners risk fan pushback, but fans have come back before

Locked-out NHL players must decide at which point the risk of losing $1.81 billion outweighs the principle of their battle with owners.

Players and owners resume negotiations Thursday in Toronto with players expected to make a formal response to the owners' Tuesday offer. That proposal was highlighted by a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue and a promise of playing a full 82-game schedule starting Nov. 2.

"Simply put," NHL Players' Association executive director Donald Fehr said in a memo sent to his players, "the owners' new proposal, while not as quite as draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rules."

No one on either side expects players to accept this offer, but the hope is it will prompt the two sides to bargain more seriously than they have to this point.

The 50-50 split essentially forces players to make decisions because it is the point where the general public starts to see the owners' position to be more reasonable. Plus, whether they admit it or not, players probably have always known they would probably have to accept a 50-50 split at some point. The fight is over the journey to get there.

This is still a whopping loss to players. The dip from their previous 57% to 50% represents a loss to players of $231 million per season. If you factor in the league growing 5% per year, the loss is $1.6 billion over the course of the deal.

The players see themselves standing on principle on two issues: 1. They previously gave owners what they wanted in the last negotiations, including a 24% salary rollback and a salary cap, and now owners want more without offering anything in return. 2. Many players have negotiated contracts under the old system, and they argue it's simply unfair for players to give back more salary this time.

Players have been privately lobbying for a gradual walk down to 50% to avoid any immediate reduction of salary.

Other issues in this battle seem fairly significant, such as the length of contracts, free agency, arbitration, defining hockey-related revenue. But it sure seems as if owners eventually will give major ground on the vast majority of those issues to get the 50-50 split.

That's why what happens over the next week comes down to the players' decision about how much they are willing to risk in the fight to express their anger over the owners wanting to take more from them.

If the season is lost, players lose $1.8 billion in salaries in one season over a fight totaling $1.6 billion over six years. Owners will lose about $1.5 billion based on the 57%-43% split in the last CBA.

The owners' biggest risk is whether the third lockout in 18 years will result in fan pushback. But hockey fans are known to be a dedicated bunch, and they came back eagerly after the lost 2004-05 season.

But If the two sides truly start to negotiate, and if owners start to give in significantly on the secondary issues and tweak the 50-50 split, players might opt for practicality over principle.

Nashville Predators defenseman Hal Gill told The Tennessean about the NHL's offer: "I think it is a framework. Obviously we're not happy with the percentage, but there are some other things that are good about it. I don't have the lawyer speak and fine print the lawyers have to look over and explain to us, but it looks like something that is workable and something that maybe we're a little closer to being on the same page."

The players aren't going back to 57%, and they know that. What that means is if the season is canceled, they will lose this season's salary and still have to give more when this negotiation is settled.

Former All-Star Jeremy Roenick, who backs the players, estimates he lost between $8.5 million and $9 million because of the last lockout.

"I remember thinking when it was happening that I will earn it back," Roenick said. "But you never get it back."

Although there is much more money involved, this is different from other management-labor issues in America. Every day, management reduces salaries and employee benefits in the name of cutting costs. Employees could walk away in protest, but they don't because they like what they are doing or they have families to support or 80% of their pay is still more than they could earn elsewhere. It's not a principle position. It's a practical position.

There is an offer or percentage change or a provision that will move the players to the practical position. They are still in principle mode now, but there is a point when players will say the risk of losing a season's salary isn't worth the fight.

If the two sides don't reach that point over the next week, losing a season could become a very real risk.