“Cheer up, things could be worse.” So, we cheered up. Things got worse.

In healthier times for athletes and athletics, there were several tried-and-true methods of creating a debate likely to create serious response from all sides: which of the major professional leagues is best?

The question has special impact now, as hoopsters, skaters, gridders and ballplayers — joined by governments and team bosses — seek the best way to survive the anguish caused by COVID-19 and restore stability for all teams, all sports and all the fans who care about them.

All are staggering these days.

In the pandemic’s early chapters, the mantra became familiar: “Cheer up, things could be worse.” So, we cheered up. Things got worse.

The NHL fights the coronavirus by limiting information. Baseball players and owners pick this time to enter wrist-twisting events that probably will have no long-term effect. Football operators dig themselves into and out of political crisis on a daily basis.

The National Basketball Association, somehow, has found its way past such errors. Their decision to let players put political opinions on game jerseys was thoroughly questioned but has received more praise than criticism.

Recently, in Canada, there was evidence that the National Basketball Association had a substantial edge in popularity and support, thanks almost totally to the 2020 success of the Toronto Raptors. Even the casual fan recalls the wild response generated, east to west and all points in between, by the shocking championship run created largely on the brilliance of Kawhi Leonard and the incredible effort generated by his teammates, night after night.

Never in recent history has competition in the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball or National Football League prompted bursts of wild, day-to-day support to equal the attention the Raptors attained in each playoff series leading to the ultimate victory. From a league-wide perspective, the excellence in which the NBA conducted all those games was remarkable.

Sure, the Edmonton Oilers had massive appeal when they dominated Stanley Cup races, year after year, in the heyday of Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier and their partners who marched almost as a unit into the Hockey Hall of Fame. At other times, the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs (believe it or not!) also reached that level, or came close to it. But the NHL has struggled — still struggles, in fact — to be recognized across the world as equal to basketball, baseball or football.

No doubt, the Toronto Blue Jays’ World Series successes in 1992 and 1993 are near the top in any ranking of this nation’s largest sports moments but MLB has done a lousy job of attracting Black players and getting young fans interested in their game.

Perhaps the NFL has made more errors than all the others combined. Their owners alternate between bowing to political pressure and actively defying political reality. Ignoring the tragic used-to-be “Redskins” story is an error that could emerge, perhaps for decades, as the biggest failure of all.

https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/author/johnshort/

John Short

Follow Author

The Raptors (Ridgefield Raptors that is) are coming to Edmonton next summer

Alberta / 5 years ago

Last week our nation ran into a spree of high-profile miracles

Alberta / 5 years ago

Edmonton’s connection to the defection of Baltimore Orioles’ superstar Jose Iglesias

Alberta

Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Amid the tariff war, the price of West Texas Intermediate oil—a common benchmark—recently dropped below US$60 per barrel. Given every $1 drop in oil prices is an estimated $750 million hit to provincial revenues, if oil prices remain low for long, there could be big implications for Alberta’s budget.

The Smith government already projects a $5.2 billion budget deficit in 2025/26 with continued deficits over the following two years. This year’s deficit is based on oil prices averaging US$68.00 per barrel. While the budget does include a $4 billion “contingency” for unforeseen events, given the economic and fiscal impact of Trump’s tariffs, it could quickly be eaten up.

Budget deficits come with costs for Albertans, who will already pay a projected $600 each in provincial government debt interest in 2025/26. That’s money that could have gone towards health care and education, or even tax relief.

Unfortunately, this is all part of the resource revenue rollercoaster that’s are all too familiar to Albertans.

Resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is inherently volatile. In the last 10 years alone, it has been as high as $25.2 billion in 2022/23 and as low as $2.8 billion in 2015/16. The provincial government typically enjoys budget surpluses—and increases government spending—when oil prices and resource revenue is relatively high, but is thrown into deficits when resource revenues inevitably fall.

Fortunately, the Smith government can mitigate this volatility.

The key is limiting the level of resource revenue included in the budget to a set stable amount. Any resource revenue above that stable amount is automatically saved in a rainy-day fund to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in the budget during years of relatively low resource revenue. The logic is simple: save during the good times so you can weather the storm during bad times.

Indeed, if the Smith government had created a rainy-day account in 2023, for example, it could have already built up a sizeable fund to help stabilize the budget when resource revenue declines. While the Smith government has deposited some money in the Heritage Fund in recent years, it has not created a dedicated rainy-day account or introduced a similar mechanism to help stabilize provincial finances.

Limiting the amount of resource revenue in the budget, particularly during times of relatively high resource revenue, also tempers demand for higher spending, which is only fiscally sustainable with permanently high resource revenues. In other words, if the government creates a rainy-day account, spending would become more closely align with stable ongoing levels of revenue.

And it’s not too late. To end the boom-bust cycle and finally help stabilize provincial finances, the Smith government should create a rainy-day account.

Alberta

Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion

Published on April 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.

Alberta has long been viewed as an oasis in Canada’s overheated housing market—a refuge for Canadians priced out of high-cost centres such as Vancouver and Toronto. But the oasis is starting to dry up. House prices and rents in the province have spiked by about one-third since the start of the pandemic. According to a recent Maru poll, more than 70 per cent of Calgarians and Edmontonians doubt they will ever be able to afford a home in their city. Which raises the question: how much longer can this go on?

Alberta’s housing affordability problem reflects a simple reality—not enough homes have been built to accommodate the province’s growing population. The result? More Albertans competing for the same homes and rental units, pushing prices higher.

Population growth has always been volatile in Alberta, but the recent surge, fuelled by record levels of immigration, is unprecedented. Alberta has set new population growth records every year since 2022, culminating in the largest-ever increase of 186,704 new residents in 2024—nearly 70 per cent more than the largest pre-pandemic increase in 2013.

Homebuilding has increased, but not enough to keep pace with the rise in population. In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.

Moreover, from 1972 to 2019, Alberta added 2.1 new residents (on average) for every housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents for every housing unit started in 2024. Put differently, today nearly twice as many new residents are potentially competing for each new home compared to historical norms.

While Alberta attracts more Canadians from other provinces than any other province, federal immigration and residency policies drive Alberta’s population growth. So while the provincial government has little control over its population growth, provincial and municipal governments can affect the pace of homebuilding.

For example, recent provincial amendments to the city charters in Calgary and Edmonton have helped standardize building codes, which should minimize cost and complexity for builders who operate across different jurisdictions. Municipal zoning reforms in Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer have made it easier to build higher-density housing, and Lethbridge and Medicine Hat may soon follow suit. These changes should make it easier and faster to build homes, helping Alberta maintain some of the least restrictive building rules and quickest approval timelines in Canada.

There is, however, room for improvement. Policymakers at both the provincial and municipal level should streamline rules for building, reduce regulatory uncertainty and development costs, and shorten timelines for permit approvals. Calgary, for instance, imposes fees on developers to fund a wide array of public infrastructure—including roads, sewers, libraries, even buses—while Edmonton currently only imposes fees to fund the construction of new firehalls.

It’s difficult to say how long Alberta’s housing affordability woes will endure, but the situation is unlikely to improve unless homebuilding increases, spurred by government policies that facilitate more development.