As a Pens fan living outside Pittsburgh, I'm considering the Athletic just for the content. Not just for the Pens, but for national writers who are no longer available for free online. I'll wait to see how insightful the content is once the seasons starts; if it's just puff pieces I won't subscribe, but I'll give it a chance.
When I heard about the article, I was ready to get enraged, but having now read it, the public rage seems really overblown. The broader point of the article is that if the Pens (and more broadly, the NHL) were hoping to stay neutral on this issue, it's A) impossible, because any action was going to be interpreted one way or another, and B) they handled it in possibly the most tone-deaf way. The only "swipe" at Mario, which I think is a stretch at that, is that he was called out personally. The article could have just as easily been written about the league in general, and it has (I read a very similar article in the Globe and Mail just the other weekend) by other people. Saying that these articles wouldn't have been written about other teams / owners just doesn't ring true - it's the hottest topic in North America sports right now, and the NHL's response was going to be discussed for sure.
Should the writer have left Mario out? Yes, but he's also writing for a specific audience, one that feels a connection to Mario specifically. And other than saying "You can't stay neutral in this", the article was very complimentary to Mario as a person. Anyway, that's my opinion, I was slightly disappointed the Pens didn't respond a little differently to the controversy, but not surprised at all - this is the NHL after all.
The article was gross. It was an attempt to score easy political points with the SJW types by taking a swipe at an easy target in Mario. This article NEVER gets written if a Wayne Gretzky owned team visited the current Trump White House. Mario has been a target for Toronto high-brow media types forever.
When I heard about the article, I was ready to get enraged, but having now read it, the public rage seems really overblown. The broader point of the article is that if the Pens (and more broadly, the NHL) were hoping to stay neutral on this issue, it's A) impossible, because any action was going to be interpreted one way or another, and B) they handled it in possibly the most tone-deaf way. The only "swipe" at Mario, which I think is a stretch at that, is that he was called out personally. The article could have just as easily been written about the league in general, and it has (I read a very similar article in the Globe and Mail just the other weekend) by other people. Saying that these articles wouldn't have been written about other teams / owners just doesn't ring true - it's the hottest topic in North America sports right now, and the NHL's response was going to be discussed for sure.
Should the writer have left Mario out? Yes, but he's also writing for a specific audience, one that feels a connection to Mario specifically. And other than saying "You can't stay neutral in this", the article was very complimentary to Mario as a person. Anyway, that's my opinion, I was slightly disappointed the Pens didn't respond a little differently to the controversy, but not surprised at all - this is the NHL after all.