Ban on rainbow tape - did the NHL think this through?

[Yukon Joe]

OK at the outset - I see similar topics have been closed on the main board. So let's be clear - nobody wants to hear what your opinion is on pride night, or gay rights, or whatever. Keep your "hot takes" to yourself. Lets just stick to the business side of hockey.

I understand the league wants to stay away from any controversial topics. They're a business. I get that. They're trying to avoid controversy by banning any themed warm up jerseys - and this includes rainbow stick tape.

But did the NHL really think the ban on rainbow tape through?

Here's a quote from Flyers player Scott Laughton:



Did the league consider what would happen if a player DID use rainbow tape in a warm-up? Would the league really want to fine or otherwise discipline a team/player for showing support for gay rights in that manner? Did they consider how that would play out in the media?

I feel like that would be even worse publicity for the league than Provorov refusing to wear a pride-themed jersey.

Why the league wouldn't go with a "we leave it up to the players" is beyond me. Just from a sheer optics side.

Click to read more...

 

[Headshot77]

No. They didn't. NHL upper management is homophobic. Plain as day.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Why the league wouldn't go with a "we leave it up to the players" is beyond me. Just from a sheer optics side.

Because Teams and the League get bad press when the media circus ensues when a player skips it.

People would still claim hockey/NHL is homophobic when the droves of players would've continued to skip the pride stuff if they continued on with it.

Lose-Lose

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I understood the case for doing away with the jerseys - Didn't agree, but at least understood the NHL's reasoning.

This is the smallest, performative, optional thing a player could do, and no one would question if a player didn't do it.

At the end of the day, it's colourful tape - It really does send a bad message to fans.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Because Teams and the League get bad press when the media circus ensues when a player skips it.

People would still claim hockey/NHL is homophobic when the droves of players would've continued to skip the pride stuff if they continued on with it.

Lose-Lose

Yes, but the question is whether there is going to be an even WORSE media circus if a player or players DO use rainbow stick tape even though it has been banned? Doesn't the NHL risk looking even more homophobic if they start fining Laughton or someone else for using rainbow stick tape?

As much as the league wants to avoid controversy, it is a part of society, and these social issues will come up and probably offend some people. The question is how to minimize that risk, but you'll never eliminate it.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Yes, but the question is whether there is going to be an even WORSE media circus if a player or players DO use rainbow stick tape even though it has been banned? Doesn't the NHL risk looking even more homophobic if they start fining Laughton or someone else for using rainbow stick tape?

As much as the league wants to avoid controversy, it is a part of society, and these social issues will come up and probably offend some people. The question is how to minimize that risk, but you'll never eliminate it.

I think semantics/'lost in translation' (poor communication by league) might be in play here. If an individual player here or there wears the tape, I don't think anyone will care or anything will happen. To me the ban, which did explicitlymention tape, was more about the bigger organized bans in regards to the jerseys and organized showing of pride. Which obviously got canned because of the circus that follows when someone doesn't obliged.

Because yes, the league punishing an individual player who wanted to do that would absolutely make as big or bigger of a circus then when a player doesn't participate in the organized wearings.

So yea, Idk. I could be wrong.

 

[StreetHawk]

In terms of the actual fine, it would probably fall under the uniform such as not tying down your jersey, or at least that is probably where the NHL would argue it to fall under. Not sure if they provided details to the PA of any discipline or fine should a player not abide by it. Or whether the PA agreed to anything.

Would be interesting to see if/when a player goes rogue and the result from it.

 

[daver]

Yes, but the question is whether there is going to be an even WORSE media circus if a player or players DO use rainbow stick tape even though it has been banned? Doesn't the NHL risk looking even more homophobic if they start fining Laughton or someone else for using rainbow stick tape?

As much as the league wants to avoid controversy, it is a part of society, and these social issues will come up and probably offend some people. The question is how to minimize that risk, but you'll never eliminate it.

Great job in keeping this thread to a "Business perspective" only.

Why does not wearing a rainbow make you homophobic? I see no indication on your avatar that you support LGBT or women or black people so you must be homophobic, misogynistic and racist.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think semantics/'lost in translation' (poor communication by league) might be in play here. If an individual player here or there wears the tape, I don't think anyone will care or anything will happen. To me the ban, which did explicitlymention tape, was more about the bigger organized bans in regards to the jerseys and organized showing of pride. Which obviously got canned because of the circus that follows when someone doesn't obliged.

Because yes, the league punishing an individual player who wanted to do that would absolutely make as big or bigger of a circus then when a player doesn't participate in the organized wearings.

So yea, Idk. I could be wrong.

SO of course I could be wrong on all of this also. I don't know.

But lets try to game out what might happen. The Flyers have a pride night, but not jerseys. Laughton comes out for warmup with rainbow tape on his stick.

Guaranteed Laughton's going to be asked about the tape. League is going to be asked if they're going to fine or otherwise punish Laughton. If the answer is no, they're asked "why not". All of the other players, on both teams, will be asked about the rainbow tape, do they support Laughton using it or not. If they do, they'll be asked why they didn't use it. If they don't, they'll be asked why not.

I don't see that being any smaller of a media circus than when Provorov refused to wear a pride jersey. (and interesting that Provorov was with the Flyers at that time, as is Laughton, but that the Flyers traded him away in the offseason. I don't follow the Flyers closely so I have no idea if that was connected to the pride jersey issue or not)

 

[daver]

In terms of the actual fine, it would probably fall under the uniform such as not tying down your jersey, or at least that is probably where the NHL would argue it to fall under. Not sure if they provided details to the PA of any discipline or fine should a player not abide by it. Or whether the PA agreed to anything.

Would be interesting to see if/when a player goes rogue and the result from it.

Because when a player doesn't tuck their jersey and is fined n there's an uproar and front page articles about? What is interesting about other than it being leveraged by attention seekers.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Great job in keeping this thread to a "Business perspective" only.

Why does not wearing a rainbow make you homophobic? I see no indication on your avatar that you support LGBT or women or black people so you must be homophobic, misogynistic and racist.

I was just commenting using the same phrase as @Filthy Dangles

Because you know that's how some in the media will try to portray it if they punish a player for using rainbow stick tape.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

SO of course I could be wrong on all of this also. I don't know.

But lets try to game out what might happen. The Flyers have a pride night, but not jerseys. Laughton comes out for warmup with rainbow tape on his stick.

Guaranteed Laughton's going to be asked about the tape. League is going to be asked if they're going to fine or otherwise punish Laughton. If the answer is no, they're asked "why not". All of the other players, on both teams, will be asked about the rainbow tape, do they support Laughton using it or not. If they do, they'll be asked why they didn't use it. If they don't, they'll be asked why not.

I don't see that being any smaller of a media circus than when Provorov refused to wear a pride jersey. (and interesting that Provorov was with the Flyers at that time, as is Laughton, but that the Flyers traded him away in the offseason. I don't follow the Flyers closely so I have no idea if that was connected to the pride jersey issue or not)

Damn, youre thinking into this pretty deep, ha. Probably more than the league did. I mean you make a good points though. As it was said earlier, there's no way for the NHL to win with Pride Night/LGBQ at this point, theyre gonna take some kind of an L.

I think they're gonna have to clarify and/or change their position that individual players at their own will can use Pride Tape at the very least (but still certainly not any kind of pride jersey) but teams aren't going to organize it themselves where everyone is expected to use it.

I have a feeling that this is closer to already being their stance and they kind of just communicated it rather poorly.

 

[daver]

I was just commenting using the same phrase as @Filthy Dangles

Because you know that's how some in the media will try to portray it if they punish a player for using rainbow stick tape.

Fair enough.

As for the OP, don't think the league has to worry as the people who get worked up over these things have the attention span of a squirrel or aren't hockey fans anyways.

 

[MeHateHe]

Good luck to this thread, although it would be nice for us to have an adult discussion about this from a business standpoint.

This is just a dumb decision. Agree with Tom above about the league at least having an arguable point about doing away with special nights, but this just shines a bright spotlight on an uncomfortable topic the league wants to avoid.

I've never seen this as a diversity/inclusion/rights issue. Corporations motivated by profits don't care about those things, really. They do it for the bottom line. Sorry if that sounds needlessly cynical, but it's a sound business decision to expand your customer base. The kerfuffle around the Pride Night jerseys sent a bad signal to some, and this exacerbates that. I honestly don't know who they're trying to appeal to with this.

 

[Bixby Snyder]

You know it would be the end of the NHL if Tim Pool called it "TOO WOKE!"

 

[Czechboy]

Bad decision from the NHL. Laughable really.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Good luck to this thread, although it would be nice for us to have an adult discussion about this from a business standpoint.

This is just a dumb decision. Agree with Tom above about the league at least having an arguable point about doing away with special nights, but this just shines a bright spotlight on an uncomfortable topic the league wants to avoid.

I've never seen this as a diversity/inclusion/rights issue. Corporations motivated by profits don't care about those things, really. They do it for the bottom line. Sorry if that sounds needlessly cynical, but it's a sound business decision to expand your customer base. The kerfuffle around the Pride Night jerseys sent a bad signal to some, and this exacerbates that. I honestly don't know who they're trying to appeal to with this.

So for starters I think we are in fact having a pretty adult conversation here. I think the culture at the BOH forum is a little different than the main forum.

Absolutely the NHL is motivated by profits and the bottom line. If you look at all the "special nights" that teams do, they're all pretty safe topics. Hockey fights cancer - is there anybody out there who is pro-cancer? Military appreciation night - even if you're a pacifist, is there anybody who is against thanking the military? It's not like any NHL teams are running a "right to life" appreciation night, or something similarly controversial.

And pride nights... the NHL wasn't running Pride nights back in the 1980s when it would have been controversial. It's the 2020s and the NHL almost certainly thought this was a perfectly safe topic. "Who out there is against gay rights?"

But I think the NHL got caught up in two different but related trends. First was Putin and Russia. Putin's Russia started a major land war in Europe. Internally Putin's Russia has portrayed the war as being against the degenerate West, and have brought anti-gay rights into part of the justification. It's not an accident that Ivan Provorov who set this off within the NHL is from Russia.

The second trend is the trans issue. I'm really going to tread lightly here, but trans rights (in particular youth transition, trans athletes, and bathrooms) have become a hot button topic over the last few years.

So - NHL teams has had Pride nights for a bunch of years (Googling suggests the first NHL Pride night was held by Florida in 2013). They never used to be controversial for almost a decade. Suddenly they became controversial. So I can understand the league wanting the issue to go away.

But I guess you can tell - I think the league didn't think this through, and it's going to blow up in their face. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I doubt they will fine anyone that puts rainbow tape on their stick, they just don't want designated affinity nights because then it's a whole thing if a player wants to skip it. Realistically, they shouldn't care that much about a player acting on their own accord, they just don't want a situation where it's a large chunk of the team doing it and so the "non-participants" are standing out. It's admittedly a tricky spot to navigate.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I doubt they will fine anyone that puts rainbow tape on their stick, they just don't want designated affinity nights because then it's a whole thing if a player wants to skip it. Realistically, they shouldn't care that much about a player acting on their own accord, they just don't want a situation where it's a large chunk of the team doing it and so the "non-participants" are standing out. It's admittedly a tricky spot to navigate.

But the minute one player does it, the rest are standing out.

I don't know how many Ted Lasso fans are out there, but let me give this one a shot. In one episode player Sam Obisanya covers up the sponsors logo because the sponsor is owned by an oil company responsible for pollution in his home country of Nigeria. The rest of the team rallies around Sam (because this is TV) and also covers up the sponsors logo. But what if they hadn't - all the media would be asking players questions about why they did or did not cover up the sponsor.

The same thing would happen if some players do, and other players don't, use rainbow tape.

 

[hangman005]

I doubt they will fine anyone that puts rainbow tape on their stick, they just don't want designated affinity nights because then it's a whole thing if a player wants to skip it. Realistically, they shouldn't care that much about a player acting on their own accord, they just don't want a situation where it's a large chunk of the team doing it and so the "non-participants" are standing out. It's admittedly a tricky spot to navigate.

I think it's pretty much this, if a big deal wasn't made about anyone opting out this wouldn't have been an issue and they could have maintained the status quo, instead I think the elected to take on a PR hit now, than have them continue to be scattered through out the year. I don't think there is any intention to actually enforce the ban, but they had to change the status quo so it's a non story if someone for whatever reason did not want to particiapte. Had it been treated as non stories when these incidents happaned nothing would have needed to change.

 

[DS7]

From a business perspective. You just signaled to roughly ~21million potential fans in North America that you don't want to their money.

At a time when viewership is down due to the regional blackouts and MLS is already supplanting the NHL as the fourth sport in the US. Not to mention it being a decade since the NHL had players in the Olympics.

Not looking too good for the league

 

[Ovie's Neighbor]

People think the NFL is the no fun league but hockey is by far the most conservative old boys club. And I do not just mean on this topic. Individual expression is looked down on. Their marketing and business development methods are antiquated. They do their best to be an anti-growth organization.

 

[Flybynite]

Is all colored tape banned from sticks? So if it's breast cancer awareness night is pink tape allowed?

 

[Yukon Joe]

Is all colored tape banned from sticks? So if it's breast cancer awareness night is pink tape allowed?

Nope.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

They didn’t ban pride tape. They banned anything that isn’t standard uniform or equipment. That includes any color tape that isn’t black or white and any warmup jerseys. It’s just being labeled as a pride tape ban.

The league gambles on taking a PR hit before games with this heavy handed rule instead of taking PR hit after PR hit during pride nights because players choose not to put pride tape or wear the jersey.

Probably isn’t going to pay off as it will cause issues now and during pride nights, cancer nights, or support of tragedies.

In the end they did something which likely isn’t any better than doing nothing. The league can’t force participation or punish for not participating in any night.