Mike Chen's Hockey Blog
Next entry: “I’m hungry and have to pee.”
Previous entry: Even Canadian Attendance Dips When Teams Lose
What Does Gary Bettman Actually Do?
by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 10:00 AM ET
Comments (23)
For longtime readers of my hockey writing, you know that I’ve constantly tried to illustrate the point of what Gary Bettman does and what the Board of Governors does. This whole Phoenix situation is putting a bigger spotlight than usual, so it’s important to note that while people will put up websites like FireBettman.com, the actual act of jettisoning Bettman probably wouldn’t have the effect they wanted.
What are Gary Bettman’s actual responsibilities (besides hosting the NHL Hour to talk about his favorite bands)? He’s a negotiator, advisor, and facilitator all wrapped up into one.
Facilitator:
The NHL commissioner’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the operational rules and processes of the league and its franchises are followed. In essence, it’s a bit of checks and balances so that the Board of Governors doesn’t implode; at the same time, the BoG puts Bettman in check.
Bettman also oversees the structural operations of the league. Each department’s Chief Officer reports to him, and there’s a flow in terms of how this goes. The BoG dictates the direction they want the league to go, this goes to Bettman who is the focal point of strategy, then he delegates it down to his COs in each department, then they work on their own department level to accomplish the task. Reporting goes in reverse—first on the department level, then the CO level, then to Bettman, then to the BoG.
Negotiator:
The commissioner is typically the lead negotiator for a sports league, though in the NHL’s case, Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly seems to have taken over much of this responsibility. This can be anything from CBAs to TV contracts to international transfer agreements.
Advisor:
When the BoG wants to make a move in a certain direction, be it expansion or Olympic participation, the commissioner collects data about options and presents it to the board. If they want his opinion, they’ll ask him, but it’s not his role to present it unsolicited, nor is it his role to act on it without approval. In situations of tie votes, the commissioner can act as a tiebreaker.
In short, a league commissioner is the action man for the Board of Governors. They tell him what they want done and he works to make it happen through his subordinates while making sure that individual franchises play by the rules. As the public’s point of contact to the board (and in essence, the league), his job is to tow the company line and be an advocate for BoG decisions.
Nowhere does his actual opinion come into play. Of course, as a negotiator and facilitator, he’s got to use his business judgment to get things done but he doesn’t drive the will of the league like a dictator. Similarly, in his role as process enforcer, he’s going to fight back against anyone who’s trying to break the league rules. Hence, the whole thing with Jim Balsillie’s relocation clause without BoG approval—it’s not in the league’s governing rules, so Bettman’s job is to squash it.
It’s important to really accent the word “job” there. He gets paid to be the PR-spinning yes man that sports fans love to hate. It goes with the territory, and maybe if you ran into Bettman at a bar and got a few shots of whiskey in him, you might find out what he really thinks about two teams in Southern California or Jim Balsillie. I’m sure he doesn’t agree with everything the BoG does but it’s his role to push that agenda forward.
So let’s take a rough look at how this all comes into play. Theoretically, if the BoG wasn’t satisfied with the Versus TV package, they would task Bettman as the league’s chief negotiator to go out and explore options when the contract is up. Bettman’s subordinates would gather information from FSN, Versus, ESPN, and whatever cable networks might be interested. Bettman looks at the data, then either him or a representative begin negotiating preliminary numbers with viable options. These negotiations go through however many iterations until they’re presentable to the BoG. The BoG sees the top options, then votes on them. The winning option is announced and Bettman puts on the PR spin to try and convince everyone that this was the best move for the league.
That’s the big thing here. We can’t fully judge whether he’s done a good or a bad job because his role is to facilitate the will of the BoG, not dictate the direction of the league. It’s something totally different from what we see as fans and observers. They will know if he succeeded by whether or not he accomplished what they wanted. Until we’re privy to in-house communications and BoG voting, it’s impossible to know. In real life, he may or may not be anti-Canadian (somehow, I highly doubt that), but in his professional role, he can’t let those biases get in the way of pushing forward the BoG agenda. And if the BoG felt he was doing a bad job with that? They’d get rid of him.
In short, if you’re unhappy with the way the league is, understand that there are different people in charge of different things and that it funnels up to Bettman as the mouthpiece but then the final decision goes to the BoG. If you feel like the NHL is ass-backwards and hell-bent on self-destruction, firing Bettman won’t do any good. You’ll need a fundamental shift in attitude from the majority of BoG members in order to make that happen.
Filed in: NHL | Mike Chen's Hockey Blog | Permalink
Tags: Gary+Bettman,
Comments
Kevin, remember the lockout started with the BoG. They wanted the hard cap, Bettman (as advisor and negotiator) told them what it would take to get it, and they approved the scorched earth solution. Thus, they tasked Bettman with getting the hard cap at all costs, including killing the 04-05 season. You can fault Bettman for being too bullheaded of a negotiator to save the season (I think a lot of that bullheadedness has to go on Bob Goodenow too; clearly the two weren’t negotiating for much of the time).
That’s the thing, Bettman’s role is to execute to the will of the BoG. If the BoG would have said that they couldn’t stand to lose a season, it would have never happened.
If I was going to get behind one of the “Fire someone!” crusades, I would go with Stephen Walkom. I think he’s done a horrible job officiating the officiating this playoffs. Could you tell what was a penalty in Game 3? I sure couldn’t. They call one interference penalty but let a dozen go on both ends? You can’t pick and choose like that, and it’s been going on the whole playoffs. Walkom’s role is to review and uphold the officiating but I don’t think that’s been going on.
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 11:17 AM ET
I think the officiating has been terrible as well. I’m not a fan of Detroit either…..the refs look like they are afraid to call a penalty especially against the home team. I mean six men on the ice is a penalty…..Hal Gill is a human interference penalty….I’m glad they are ignoring the minor stick infractions but a high stick is a high stick..too many men on the ice is too many men on the ice…..Wake up!!
Posted by kevin from boston on 06/03/09 at 11:30 AM ET
I was unimpressed with Gary Betteman’s interview that he did between periods last night on CBC. The guys sounds like a bumbling idiot.
Posted by goon from Grand Forks, ND on 06/03/09 at 12:42 PM ET
Excellent article, Mike.
I’d love to see an article on who makes up the BoG, with a little background on each member.
Posted by section 117 from San Jose on 06/03/09 at 01:01 PM ET
How would the NHL go about firing Betteman? Maybe he is spitting out the company line.
Posted by goon from Grand Forks, ND on 06/03/09 at 01:22 PM ET
The BoG is made up of each team’s owner. For teams that have multiple owners, there’s a designated representative. The BoG also has its own infrastructure with elected officials. There’s a mix of old and new money in there; I’m sure if you googled around, you could find a list of NHL owners.
Note that this is different from when the GMs vote on things like rule changes. There are many different levels to the NHL operational structure. That’s why firing Bettman won’t create any drastic changes unless the entire culture of the ownership changes.
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 01:23 PM ET
Goon, Bettman’s on a contract with the league. I believe it was renewed a year or two ago. If they wanted to fire him, it would just be like a team owner firing a GM—the BoG votes to terminate his contract or to not renew it if the contract is over. That’s pretty much it. Bettman has 30 bosses that he reports to and they have the power to keep him or let him go.
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 01:29 PM ET
Then could we make the arguement that he is the yes boys for the owners and is doing what they want him to do? Because I have yet to see any of the owners come out and say they are not happy with him. I know the fans are pretty key up some of them. I think that the NHL would be better going a different way with a different face.
Posted by goon from Grand Forks, ND on 06/03/09 at 01:35 PM ET
Then could we make the arguement that he is the yes boys for the owners and is doing what they want him to do?
Well, yeah, in the really simplified sense. Think about it this way. Your boss tells you what they want done, then it’s your job to go about achieving that in the most effective way possible—even if you don’t necessarily agree with that. If he ask for your opinion, you can say, “Maybe we should look at this instead” but ultimately he holds the final decision because he signs the checks.
No one would want to hire someone that will just wind up being a loose canon and insubordinate. They want someone that can take the tasks assigned to him and do them well. If that task is “Break the NHLPA and Bob Goodenow at whatever cost”, well, that’s what he got paid to do whether or not he believed in it.
The stuff he says to the public is often head-scratching to us because it’s a lot of double-speak and filler without really getting to the point, but as the spin man for the BoG’s decisions, it’s his role to try to make everything come out positive. It’s kinda like how after a presidential debate, both candidates’ campaign managers will come out and say they won and the other guy did terrible.
If Bettman said, “I don’t agree with the BoG decision here and here’s why it’s a bad idea,” they’d fire him right away. Again, look at the comparable between you (the reader) and your boss. If you took out a public statement criticizing your boss, you may have gotten something off your chest and you may have had a real point, but your ass would be canned and you’d be looking for a new job. That doesn’t mean you can’t advise your boss and offer input, but if he’s stubborn and set in his ways, it comes down to either doing it or quitting.
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 03:13 PM ET
Thanks Mike.
Since Bettman’s still employed, does that mean that the owners are satisfied with the current TV contract?
Posted by section 117 from San Jose on 06/03/09 at 07:34 PM ET
Interesting read, Mike. I appreciate your defense of Bettman as you take the time to fully explain what Li’l Gary’s responsibilities and duties are. This will be a long reply as you touched on many things.
When it comes to stupid TV deals (non-national Versus vs. ESPN), the lockout, expansion franchises, and the like, I agree with what you say, was not entirely Bettman’s fault. He represented the will of the BoG. Even critics of Bettman, like myself, know this.
We don’t know how often he was asked his opinion. It could be the preference of certain expansion locations over others may have been because Bettman’s opinion was taken seriously. We don’t know.
We don’t know exactly why he hired some of the officers that he did. As you mention they are the action people. We don’t know if Bettman has hired some league officers because Bettman knows he can exert influence over them. As you mention, if the BoG gives an order Bettman has to listen. But not everything goes through the BoG.
To me this is the problem with Bettman: his lack of accountability/transparency on certain key issues, and his lack of consistency enforcing league policy.
Some secrecy is warranted. I don’t think the league should have been advertising that Phoenix was in bad financial trouble, and they didn’t. However when you take all of Bettman’s statements this season about the financial health of the league and its teams, he was painting a very different picture. A rather rosy one compared to some of the facts that have since come to light. That is disingenuous.
My other big issue with Bettman is his enforcement of the rules is terribly inconsistent and unfair. Many of his explanations seem arbitrary/impulsive.
Most teams have an issue on some matter, so I will use the example from the Red Wings’ past season as that is the team I closely follow.
At the end of Game 2, Malkin received an instigator penalty for starting a fight with Zetterberg in the final minute. According to league rules, an automatic one game suspension should have been assessed for the instigator infraction. And yet not even an hour after the game ended the league announced Colin Campbell and the NHL decided to rescind the instigator penalty and Malkin was not to be suspended.
Bettman and the league shouldn’t arbitrarily decide when to go by the letter of the rulebook and when to go “off page” cite intent. I am sure Bettman, and his officer Colin Campbell, did not take a vote with the BoG to determine if Malkin’s hit violated the unwritten “intent’ of the rules.
As the decision to rescind the instigator and negate the suspension was meted out minutes not hours after the conclusion of the game, the BoGs could not have been consulted. The decision was Bettman and the league’s. FTR, I think it is a poor rule to suspend automatically and should not be in the rule book in the first place.
Let’s look at another league decision that this time was taken by the letter of the rulebook, and not by its intent. Shortly before the 2009 All-Star Game, both Datyuk and Lidstrom were injured and missed the game before the break. As they were hurt, they could not play the game and instead chose to stay home and receive treatment for their injuries.
Based on an obscure new rule, the Bettman and the NHL decided to suspend both Lidstrom and Datsyuk for the game following the All-Star Game because they did not attend the festivities despite not being able to play and getting medical treatment for their injuries.
When asked about it, Bettman made a point to show his hands were tied as it was “in the rulebook” and the suspension was “automatic”. He also said advance warning was given regarding the suspensions. The unwritten “intent” of the rule was to prevent stars from randomly deciding not to show up to the ASG when they were voted in. But this time Bettman chose to ignore the “intent”.
He was not forthright mentioning that he called Sidney Crosby personally many days before the game (Crosby was injured and in a similar situation) and warned him of the suspension if he did not attend. Bettman did not call Datsyuk or Zetterberg personally, instead calling the club a day or so before the ASG weekend. How is that fair?
Bettman is a poor representative for the league for these reasons and many others that don’t involve TV contracts. The game deserves a strong commissioner for the BoG that can be consistent with his decisions and his messages. Bettman is too disingenuous for the role. The NHL can do better.
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/03/09 at 08:05 PM ET
Interesting read, Mike. I appreciate your defense of Bettman as you take the time to fully explain what Li’l Gary’s responsibilities and duties are.
And I appreciate the non-knee jerk “Bettman sucks” responses from everyone so far. 
I’m not necessarily a supporter of his, nor am I really defending him. I just think it’s important to understand what areas you *could* slag him for as opposed to just pinning everything on the guy.
I don’t think the league should have been advertising that Phoenix was in bad financial trouble, and they didn’t. However when you take all of Bettman’s statements this season about the financial health of the league and its teams, he was painting a very different picture. A rather rosy one compared to some of the facts that have since come to light. That is disingenuous.
Good point. There’s a difference between simply stating something like “The situation is fluid and we’re exploring options” to “Everything’s awesome, have a beer and kick back.”
I’m guessing the idea was to protect the owners’ investments. Whenever a team looks shaky, it can devalue the league and thus diminish perceived value of individual teams. Disingenuous? Yup. But considering the old boys’ club that a lot of the owners fall into, not terribly unexpected.
Bettman and the league shouldn’t arbitrarily decide when to go by the letter of the rulebook and when to go “off page” cite intent. I am sure Bettman, and his officer Colin Campbell, did not take a vote with the BoG to determine if Malkin’s hit violated the unwritten “intent’ of the rules.
Completely agree. I’m guessing that was all Campbell, and Bettman bought off on it, then answered questions about it.
Slightly tangential to that, I wouldn’t want Campbell’s job for anything as there’s almost never a right answer and I find him generally to be in the ballpark with what I feel is right. Stephen Walkom’s hold on the officiating has dropped significantly since the lockout, though; that’s my biggest point of contention this whole season.
He was not forthright mentioning that he called Sidney Crosby personally many days before the game (Crosby was injured and in a similar situation) and warned him of the suspension if he did not attend. Bettman did not call Datsyuk or Zetterberg personally, instead calling the club a day or so before the ASG weekend. How is that fair?
My memory might be failing me on this but I do recall an interview with Ken Holland on XM shortly after the ASG where he said that he was notified a few days in advance and the decision was made to sit them anyways. He had some justification for it but I can’t remember it right now, but in any case, he basically said that he had no beef with the rule and they did give him a heads up.
The game deserves a strong commissioner for the BoG that can be consistent with his decisions and his messages. Bettman is too disingenuous for the role.
Yeah, he does come off as squirmy when you listen to his lawyer-speak (which is most of the time). I have to admit, he comes off much better when he’s talking like a normal person on the NHL Hour (though there seems to be some switch in him that instantly flips into lawyer-speak on that show). The one thing that you and I will never know is if the BoG likes having a guy be elusive like that. The problem is that he’s always painting a “We did the best thing for everyone” picture, but we all know that’s PR spin.
Perhaps they need someone who can still present that spin but at least with a stronger appearance of honesty. Course, you’ll probably need someone without a law background to get that, but that person won’t understand all of the logistical processes and legalities of the job. Then he’ll *really* be a pawn/figurehead.
You mention transparency, and unfortunately, we’ll never fully get that because it’s a privately owned enterprise. In my non-hockey writing, I’m just finishing up a project that’s advocating a stronger delineation between competing government works and private companies and one of the sticking points is the lack of transparency and metrics in the private companies. I’m not sure that will ever change.
I know the BoG has majority vote on some issues and 2/3 vote on some issues. I’d love to see what the vote what was on extending his contract.
Posted by Mike Chen on 06/03/09 at 08:34 PM ET
“Since Bettman’s still employed, does that mean that the owners are satisfied with the current TV contract?”
No , they’d rather have one like the NFL, but reality bites.
Posted by mario from toronto on 06/04/09 at 07:48 AM ET
Bettman’s role is to execute to the will of the BoG
that doesn’t mean he can’t or doesn’t influence them. it doesn’t mean they don’t look to him for advice on their own decisions, the direction of the league. for all we know the BoG says “hey Gary what should we do”, he tells them, and then they task him with it - making it look like it was the BoG’s decision when it really was Bettman’s.
this is how leaders avoid the title of dictator - they have in place a “government” that bends to their every whim, but allows him to say “hey, the BoG said to do it, I’m no dictator.” do we know that is exactly what happens in the NHL? no. do we know it’s not? no. probably somewhere in the middle.
the other way to look at it is this: if he has this role as advisor, and the BoG comes up with a poor plan that will cause problems, it is his job to show them why and convince them to change. it’s the same role the President of the United States has. Congress says they want to do something and he, as the primary leader, says “hey, wait a minute, we need to change it a little.” of course, in the case of the POTUS, he has veto powers so that gives him much more sway.
so one of two things is true:
1 - the BoG bends to his will, and he is leading the league down a damaging patch
B - he follows the BoG and has not done a good job of convincing them of the error of their ways
either way, Bettman has to go. is he the ONLY ONE who has to go? probably not. but he is definitely high on that list.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/04/09 at 10:00 AM ET
...There’s a difference between simply stating something like “The situation is fluid and we’re exploring options” to “Everything’s awesome, have a beer and kick back.”
I’m guessing the idea was to protect the owners’ investments. Whenever a team looks shaky, it can devalue the league and thus diminish perceived value of individual teams. Disingenuous? Yup. But considering the old boys’ club that a lot of the owners fall into, not terribly unexpected…
...You mention transparency, and unfortunately, we’ll never fully get that because it’s a privately owned enterprise. In my non-hockey writing, I’m just finishing up a project that’s advocating a stronger delineation between competing government works and private companies and one of the sticking points is the lack of transparency and metrics in the private companies. I’m not sure that will ever change.
In normal business I would agree on both protecting owners’ investments and lack of transparency. I think that most sports franchises are unique and not normal businesses.
The fact that most sports teams (of any sport) rely upon tax dollars from local communities to build stadiums/arenas and receive land subsidies and tax breaks, there should be greater public transparency than normal business. If the club is financed entirely by private funds, then the public accountability and transparency would not be the same.
I am sure that the city of Glendale who leases the Coyotes’ arena to the club would have liked more than a couple of months scrambling to find a buyer to bailout the club.
Given public knowledge of financial problems in Phoenix, there may have been buyers willing to keep the club in the city. As it stands, Balsillie’s bid is the greatest and would pay back creditors the most of any current bid, it would also relocate the club. And the city would lose money on the arena lease. Not to mention all the local businesses who experience economic benefits from the club.
The lack of transparency and being forthright by the commissioner will probably be a significant reason Phoenix will relocate. There wasn’t enough time for the public to know about the problem and try and find a solution.
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/04/09 at 11:03 AM ET
My memory might be failing me on this but I do recall an interview with Ken Holland on XM shortly after the ASG where he said that he was notified a few days in advance and the decision was made to sit them anyways. He had some justification for it but I can’t remember it right now, but in any case, he basically said that he had no beef with the rule and they did give him a heads up.
Bettman phoned Crosby PERSONALLY and earlier than the Detroit TEAM was notified of the possible suspension. If this was equitable why would he phone Crosby to personally warn him and not Lidstrom or Datsyuk?
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/04/09 at 11:05 AM ET
Bettman phoned Crosby PERSONALLY and earlier than the Detroit TEAM was notified of the possible suspension. If this was equitable why would he phone Crosby to personally warn him and not Lidstrom or Datsyuk?
Lidstrom and Datsyuk aren’t in Bettman’s “circle” on his phone. I’ve seen it…
quick and dirty, just like Gary likes it.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/04/09 at 11:40 AM ET
great. a coworker saw me editing that pic of Crosby. asked me, “Paul, is there anything I should know?”
ugh.
Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 06/04/09 at 11:40 AM ET
a coworker saw me editing that pic of Crosby. asked me, “Paul, is there anything I should know?”
Just stroke him on the knee and in your best come-hither voice whisper “Is there anything you’d like to know?”
Posted by monkey from here to Timbuktu on 06/04/09 at 02:04 PM ET
Hey Mike,
Specifically on the TV deals and his actual power, how do we not blame someone who made network TV one of his goals when he took over in the 90s? Even if he just negotiates, he framed it as his pet issue.
He certainly reaped the praise on the FOX deal and ABC deal. Ultimately, he was at the bargaining table for the ABC and ESPN renewal, and even if the BoG wanted the same ridiculously inflated ABC deal, shouldn’t it be part of his job to convince them to sign for less, especially going into the lockout they wanted?
I doubt firing Bettman would do much to fix the league itself, but how can you deny that it would help with TV deals? He personally negotiated the inflated deal that leveraged ABC and scorned FOX. He’s made enemies, even if only as a negotiator. A fresh face, or any face with a little less negative history, might get the league back on a top three network and a serious cable channel that actually treats hockey with respect.
Posted by Luc from San Francisco, CA on 06/04/09 at 05:24 PM ET
The cable channel that treats hockey with respect is Versus. It certaintly isn’t ESPN.
Versus and NBC have their contracts up at the end of the 2010-2011 season. So things can change drasticly during that summer when it goes to tv.
TV ratings are going up everywhere and by then they should be getting alot of more viewers than they are right now. I’m positive that somebody will come up with a big offer, especially for the Winter Classic and the Stanley Cup Finals which are big viewership events.
Whether it be ESPN, FOX or CBS/ABC, somebody will pay up for the television package. Especially when their existing contracts expire and the new tv partner can pick their own television schedule.
Keep in mind that in two years, Versus will likely be a major sports network with hopefully some decent programming. Staying on Versus would be wise because the only other cable network for sports is ESPN and their properties. Nobody else is really close.
Posted by colton from calgary on 06/08/09 at 09:57 AM ET
Yeah, sure. A channel that has an NBA highlights show, but no NHL highlights show when it airs games for the latter but none for the former shows the NHL lots of respect. Versus treats the NHL like a contagious disease.
Posted by Luc from San Francisco, CA on 06/20/09 at 12:19 AM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Intent To Blow vs. In The Crease
What Do You Expect From A Rookie Season?
About Kukla’s Korner
Kukla’s Korner is updated around the clock with the work of our own talented bloggers, plus links to the best hockey writing around the internet. We strive to bring you all the breaking hockey news as it happens.
The home page allows you to see the latest postings from every blog on the site. Subscribe here. For general inquiries and more, please contact us anytime.
Get the top online sports betting bonuses available to sports betters!
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker.
As well as reading about hockey games, you can also find info about poker like which poker sites accept American Express or which are the best Canadian poker sites and also find the top rakeback sites at rakeback.net.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
I know everybody hates on this guy but he actually got the NHL on network TV. It hadn’t been on it for 20 years. Yeah they don’t make alot of money but that’s not his fault. The fact is its on NBC…..Expansion was dumb but it was a money grab and the players can’t complain because it means more jobs for them. His biggest screwups were the Lockout (salaries/tix prices are still ridiculous) and three or four expansion teams
Posted by kevin from boston on 06/03/09 at 10:11 AM ET