Given that Santa's gift list should only include those that have been nice and not naughty, the NHL should have been scratched off the bearded one's gift list a long time ago for the nonsense that subsidy-seeking managers and owners have spewed out this past year. Apparently though, our federal politicians want to play Santa anyway (and may have delivered the gift of free lottery money by the time you read this) based on the usual myths surrounding pro sports, none of which stand up to the light of simple reason or basic economic arithmetic.

Myth # 1: "Canadian governments will lose all of tax revenues that now flow from Canada's NHL teams." This makes perfect sense - as long as one thinks Canadians would take $100 bills (the money they might now spend on two tickets to a Vancouver Canucks game) and burn them should the unfortunate happen and the Canucks leave Vancouver. Fact is, the money that flows into the hockey industry and out of it into government tax coffers, would flow into other activities - movies, minor league hockey, and skiing to name but a few - and out of it into the taxmans' hands anyway should a team leave town, tragic as that would be.

Myth # 2: "Other industries like film get subsidies and/or special tax treatment by Canadian governments. So too should hockey." Sure, other select industries get preferential treatment, and that is precisely the problem for taxpayers around the planet. Taxpayers in Brazil are forced to subsidize their aerospace industry because taxpayers in Canada subsidize theirs (or vice-verse.) Politicians play such games and keep taxpayers in both countries shelling out money to special interests. It's the same tired political game again and again, used to prop up unsustainable businesses wherever a politician wants to buy votes or favours.

Here's a novel idea: Why not cut taxpayers out of the deals and allow businesses - whether they sell planes, trains, or hockey - to compete head-on Rather than cut more special deals, politicians should revisit the existing preferential tax treatments including that of the film and aerospace industries, and instead aim for lower business and personal taxes and a more neutral tax code instead of picking winners and losers, either through direct subsidies or preferential tax treatment.

Myth # 3: "Those arguing against NHL subsidies are indulging in 'bash-the-wealthy' rhetoric." Nonsense. There is nothing morally wrong with large salaries that are derived from free market conditions. But many NHL teams, Canadian included, already get a variety of breaks including free buildings, a break on their property taxes, or a break on their rent from publicly-owned buildings. NHL salaries would actually be more modest if true free market conditions prevailed both here and south of the border - thus making it more likely Canadian teams might actually survive. It has nothing to do with wrongheaded arguments from envy.


Myth # 4: "The NHL deserves a cut from lottery revenues, since some lotteries include bets on the NHL. Governments are using the NHL for free." By this logic, newspapers that publish the scores of NHL games should give the NHL a cut of their ad revenues since some people buy newspapers for the hockey coverage. After all, sportswriters are using such information for 'free.' Those who argue this have it precisely backwards. The NHL benefits from the free publicity given to it by newspapers, radio and TV stations, and lotteries, not the other way around.

Moreover, that the NHL would take lottery tax proceeds - a voluntary tax or not - borders on Dickens-like behaviour. The poor gamble far more often than do wealthier Canadians. Transferring money from lotteries to NHL teams would take money - albeit money voluntary bet - from the poorest Canadians and transfer it to the very wealthiest. If politicians can't see that, then they deserve any and all negative reaction they get on this issue.