I don't always agree with what Al Strachan of the Toronto Sun has to say, but he did write a good article with regards to revenue sharing in the NHL. The top 1/3 of the league pays a portion of their revenues to the bottom 1/3. The Maple Leafs reportedly earned the highest revenue and are paying out nearly $10 million. To qualify as one of the bottom third, 3 factors are taken into consideration: The money the team makes, the money the team spends, and the size of the market. The Blackhawks do not qualify due to the size of their market.

One of the problems I have with this revenue sharing structure is, what incentive does it give a team in the lower portion of the league to improve itself? If a team is in contention for the Stanley Cup or close to a playoff spot at the trade deadline, would they add a player (significant or minor) that would put them out of the bottom third with regards to salary. By adding a $1 million player it could cost the team in the long run millions more. Sure they may be able to make money the farther they go in the playoffs, but there is no guarantee. By not adding a player or two, it could guarantee them millions. Teams would never come out and say this, but I wouldn't be surprised if this will happen. Of course GM's would love to be able to add players to improve their team, but decisions like this would definitely come from the owners, who in most cases in my opinion would probably look at the dollar value and not in the win category.