In the past year, Canadian NHL franchise owners have tripped up the boundaries of common sense with their cries of poverty and demands for tax concessions from all levels of government.

Media sympathy for the plight of Canadian NHL teams is somewhat understandable. But when editorials begin to press elected officials to build public policy initiatives based on boosterism, civic pride and flawed economic reasoning, well, that's way offside.

To be fair, the tax burden faced by all Canadian businesses, including NHL teams, is in dire need of fiscal reform. To engage in yet another industry-specific program, however, is not the solution. Past airline bailouts, bankrupt Nova Scotia coal mines and fledgling B.C. aluminum factories prove that we cannot right the cruel realities of the marketplace.

However, Canadians have spoken clearly on this issue in national public opinion polls, letters to newspapers and the federal government, and interventions on call-in radio programs. There is no national appetite for a large cash infusion or lottery scheme to bail out 22-year-old millionaires on skates and their equally affluent middle age employers.

Yet, Ottawa seems determined to ignore the people's wishes and pursue financial strategies based on arguments advanced by bailout advocates that wouldn't merit a passing grade in a first-year university economics course. Reports out of the nation's capital have the federal government poised to announce some sort of package by as early as Friday. These sorts of handouts do not help a situation, but rather hinder the economic progress of a business, especially that of a sports team.

And why stop at a cash infusion or a lottery? You might as well just go ahead and tax Canadian newspapers for a percentage of their ad royalties since many sports fans purchase papers for hockey box scores. The logic isn't all that different.

To clear up this mess, let's examine the misconceptions about the NHL subsidies issue as they currently stand:

Argument #1: If hockey teams fold or move south, we lose all the taxes generated for government coffers.

Let's aggressively hipcheck this one. First, the money spent by fans on hockey is disposable income. If they don't spend it on buying tickets to the game, it will be used for other types of leisure activities. Second, the money spent by businesses on advertising and ticket purchases is discretionary. Companies will continue to market their products in other venues and seek out alternate ways to entertain customers and reward employees.

Both instances lead to a simple principle known as the substitution
effect. The displaced hockey money will eventually find its way back into the Canadian economy. As for player salaries, it is irrelevant whether our boys play in Canada or the U.S. As long as they hold Canadian citizenship, they are taxed based on their worldwide income and the requisite taxes will be remitted to the appropriate Canadian jurisdictions.

Argument #2: The loss of a hockey team or teams would have a substantial impact including stifled economic development and investment opportunities for the affected city or cities.

As Peter Puck would say, two minutes in the sin bin for this whopper. Studies from respected think-tanks have consistently reached the same conclusion - professional sports franchises and stadiums have a negligible impact on the local economy.

For example, Professor Robert Baade from Lake Forest College
conducted a 1994 study of 48 cities over a 30-year period. Of the
32 cities that were affected by a change in the number of sports teams,
thirty felt no shift in per capita income during this period, one saw a slight rise and the other a small decrease.

On the economic development front, professional sports teams are not a major factor. Companies invest in metropolitan areas based on criteria such as the strength of the local workforce, proximity to competitors and/or key suppliers and customers, and the quality of life - measured by items such as safe streets, good schools, and favourable tax climates - available to their employees.

As we all know, world-class cities like Paris, Tokyo, and Rome don't have NHL teams. Even if Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver ever lost their hockey clubs, they would remain magnets for international investment and trade.

Argument #3: Hockey is Canada's game and taxpayers should contribute to this part of our culture.

Thanks for the tip, but we have and we are doing this! Corporate boxes and company-owned season tickets are eligible for 50 per cent business development tax write-offs. The federal government already aggressively advertises in several NHL arenas. For example, the Corel Centre in Ottawa sports "Canada" wordmarks inside and out. Or consider Crown Corporation advertising by Canada Post, Via Rail, and the Royal Canadian Mint.

Argument #4: NHL owners feel that they are controlling our costs and are in a unique situation.

OK, enough of this chicanery - five minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct.

The situation faced in Canada is not unique; small market U.S.-based franchises like Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and Washington are in financial peril, and revenue sharing and salary caps have not been instituted to date.

However, we must keep a free market perspective on this issue. Runaway player salaries, expensive ticket prices and a collective agreement, which owners have twice voted to extend until 2004, are entirely within the domain and control of the NHL. As for currency problems, a simple economic equation dictates that you
can't continue to pay your salaries in strong U.S. dollars and collect gate receipts in weak Canadian dollars to remain competitive.

It's time for the federal government to say game over in this tiring debate. When it comes to the list of public policy priorities, the complaints of Canadian NHL owners don't even make the cut.