Olympics: [TSN] IOC will have to pay for NHL players

[sandysan]

What never worked out? NHL growth from Olympics? That's completely unmeasurable which is the main problem. A lot easier to look at Seth jones and Austin Mathews and say oh sun belt expansion was a major success. But there's no metric to judge Olympic participation short of twenty years from now some new country becomes a hockey power and and the next Kopitar says oh I really loved basketball but saw the Olympics and decided to play hockey.

Its been 5 olympics, choose whatever metric you like and the data says that NHL participation has not helpedthe league. The league ALSO says this and this was essentially the impetus for the world cup.

There was a posibility that immediately after the games the NHL could have blasted highlights of the games out the wazoo, things like " you saw TJ oshie in Sochi, now come watch him with the caps" kind of thing but the NHL's " partner" in this expressedly forbids it.

And taking the extremely RARE superrstars from non traditional markets as evidence that hockey can grow there is just silly. Both of those people are copmplete outliers because unless those areas invest in the infrastructure to allow the complete lottery winners in terms of chance and circumstance, the flow wont increase.

There are huge HUGE swaths of the US where even if you wanted to play the game, you cannot. Relying on expats or people born in one area who are willing to move to say moose jaw to develop into nhl level players is no way to grow the game.

Chew on this, Canada which ( i'm guessing) has the most rinks per capita is already having problem with access due to cost. Its a supply and demand thing, in hockey rink deserts ( and this has nothing to go with geography) the supply is less do the demand goes up and further prices more people who COULD grow the game out. Hockey is on its way to becomming the winter version of polo, if its not there already where the only people who can afford to play are the VERY upper middle class or 1%'ers.

 

[Yakushev72]

The issue is. From the IOC perspective. If they only take a hit in Canada..... Do they care?

The NHL needed the Olympics at the time they entered it in 1998 to gain notoriety in the United States. Mainly, they wanted to take advantage of 2 NA Games in 2002 and 2010. Now they don't need the Olympics so badly, and they don't want to go to East Asia. There is a danger that being inward-oriented could damage their visibility, but they seem ready to take that risk.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Olympics go back to the pre-1998 format, when you didn't really know what you had until they faced off against each other. With the NHL, you already know how the tournament will go in advance, and there are no surprises. The games in Sochi were universally viewed as being boring, and that hurts the NHL as much as it does the fans. I would welcome it if the NHL dropped out of the Olympics.

 

[Xokkeu]

Its been 5 olympics, choose whatever metric you like and the data says that NHL participation has not helpedthe league. The league ALSO says this and this was essentially the impetus for the world cup.

There was a posibility that immediately after the games the NHL could have blasted highlights of the games out the wazoo, things like " you saw TJ oshie in Sochi, now come watch him with the caps" kind of thing but the NHL's " partner" in this expressedly forbids it.

And taking the extremely RARE superrstars from non traditional markets as evidence that hockey can grow there is just silly. Both of those people are copmplete outliers because unless those areas invest in the infrastructure to allow the complete lottery winners in terms of chance and circumstance, the flow wont increase.

There are huge HUGE swaths of the US where even if you wanted to play the game, you cannot. Relying on expats or people born in one area who are willing to move to say moose jaw to develop into nhl level players is no way to grow the game.

Chew on this, Canada which ( i'm guessing) has the most rinks per capita is already having problem with access due to cost. Its a supply and demand thing, in hockey rink deserts ( and this has nothing to go with geography) the supply is less do the demand goes up and further prices more people who COULD grow the game out. Hockey is on its way to becomming the winter version of polo, if its not there already where the only people who can afford to play are the VERY upper middle class or 1%'ers.

I don't really understanding what you're arguing. But NHL expansion to the sun belt has been a massive success

 

[sandysan]

I don't really understanding what you're arguing. But NHL expansion to the sun belt has been a massive success

which had what to do with the IOC precisely ?

And a massive success is somewhat of a misnomer, no ? Several of these teams are still very much on the precipice and how much as the golden child of this bunch ( the preds) increased hockey participation in this region ? How many new rinks in and around nashville ?

For a VERY long time the answer was none. So with increased demand and limited supply, who do you think ended up getting access to these sheets ? Inner city kids ?

if you want to grow the game, you cant throw all of your eggs into singular exceptional baskets. and if you do, and the pool of potential new talent is capped, then players from these places will trickle into the league at a snails pace.

 

[Xokkeu]

which had what to do with the IOC precisely ?

And a massive success is somewhat of a misnomer, no ? Several of these teams are still very much on the precipice and how much as the golden child of this bunch ( the preds) increased hockey participation in this region ? How many new rinks in and around nashville ?

For a VERY long time the answer was none. So with increased demand and limited supply, who do you think ended up getting access to these sheets ? Inner city kids ?

if you want to grow the game, you cant throw all of your eggs into singular exceptional baskets. and if you do, and the pool of potential new talent is capped, then players from these places will trickle into the league at a snails pace.

No idea! You started rambling about US players and I couldn't figure out where you were going with it.

 

[sandysan]

No idea! You started rambling about US players and I couldn't figure out where you were going with it.

Let me summarize it: the existance of singular talents from non traditional markets is not evidence of growing the game in meaningful ways.

If some kid in Jakarta watches the Olympics and is smitten, unless he has access to ice it won't matter. If he's content to just watch, he can do that now. Hockey isn't swimming and peepers every four years doesn't help the league.

 

[Nino33]

the NHL, whose job is not only to grow the game but also to provide a profitable context for their 30 stakeholders

It's not in any way the NHL's job to "grow the game"

 

[Xokkeu]

Let me summarize it: the existance of singular talents from non traditional markets is not evidence of growing the game in meaningful ways.

If some kid in Jakarta watches the Olympics and is smitten, unless he has access to ice it won't matter. If he's content to just watch, he can do that now. Hockey isn't swimming and peepers every four years doesn't help the league.

Yeah a kid in Jakarta is not going to get stoked on hockey. Kids in Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia etc might. This is exactly why European soccer has blown up in North America and clubs are reaping the millions of jersey sales and friendlies. And even if they suck at hockey they might watch the NHL. Expecting five Olympics or so to revolutionize international hockey ain't happening. I think the NHL knows this, but at the same time I don't blame them for not wanting to foot the IOCs bills.

 

[Yakushev72]

It's not in any way the NHL's job to "grow the game"

In a way, it kind of is the NHL's job. One of the NHL's biggest problems is the lack of bring-fans-out-of-their seats hockey talent, even as they continue to expand the number of teams. On the small rinks, it becomes a matter of just slapping the puck in the direction of the offensive zone as soon as it touches your stick. That gets very boring with less than exciting players on the ice. So they do need to grow the game to protect profits.

 

[sandysan]

Yeah a kid in Jakarta is not going to get stoked on hockey. Kids in Denmark, Latvia, Slovenia etc might. This is exactly why European soccer has blown up in North America and clubs are reaping the millions of jersey sales and friendlies. And even if they suck at hockey they might watch the NHL. Expecting five Olympics or so to revolutionize international hockey ain't happening. I think the NHL knows this, but at the same time I don't blame them for not wanting to foot the IOCs bills.

cost of a semi level patch of land, a ball and some metal pipe vs the cost of a dedicated building capable of making ice, those are not comparable. There are third world countries with huge poverty problems where soccer can take hold. There are NONE who can do this with hockey which is approaching pricing out tons of middle class people in the first world. So bully for soccer ! but stop the inane comparisons that becaue it works for soccer that hockey should follow that path,

Its great the soccer can exapand, because the costs to join are completely minimal. There are MANY MANY places in the united stated where a kids access to ice is not fundamentally different than that kid in jakarta.

If they simply want to watch, what prey tell, is stopping them right now?

The olympics has ZERO interest in promoting the league, in fact they are one of the biggest obstacles to the " growth" of the game for thee years, eleven months and two weeks every four years.

And as much as it may bother some, the league knows who butters their bread and they are still very much in the process of shoring up their own houses before looking to bring in an miniscule number of fans who would, at best, offer very little to the leagues bottom line.

And yet, the NHL is repeatedly described as " greedy" by some on the forums.

 

[Xokkeu]

cost of a semi level patch of land, a ball and some metal pipe vs the cost of a dedicated building capable of making ice, those are not comparable. There are third world countries with huge poverty problems where soccer can take hold. There are NONE who can do this with hockey which is approaching pricing out tons of middle class people in the first world. So bully for soccer ! but stop the inane comparisons that becaue it works for soccer that hockey should follow that path,

Its great the soccer can exapand, because the costs to join are completely minimal. There are MANY MANY places in the united stated where a kids access to ice is not fundamentally different than that kid in jakarta.

If they simply want to watch, what prey tell, is stopping them right now?

The olympics has ZERO interest in promoting the league, in fact they are one of the biggest obstacles to the " growth" of the game for thee years, eleven months and two weeks every four years.

And as much as it may bother some, the league knows who butters their bread and they are still very much in the process of shoring up their own houses before looking to bring in an miniscule number of fans who would, at best, offer very little to the leagues bottom line.

And yet, the NHL is repeatedly described as " greedy" by some on the forums.

Soccer in the US is not a poor persons sport. There is the Hispanic base of support for the sport which might be a lower income demographic, but they largely brought their fandom with them and passed it on to their children. The massive growth, the reason the EPL is on free tv now, is not because of backwoods people playing on dirt fields. It's predominantly urban. Upper income bracket people who pay craps loads of money to fly and see Arsenal or Barcelona. Who buy the kits and put their kids on expensive travel teams. The US soccer team is not full of lower income kids, it's full of the rich kids and middle class who could pay for the expensive travel teams. Even at the international level, poor countries with no infrastructure don't win.

so this idea that if the poor kids can't play, there's no hope is .... Odd. There are rinks and leagues in every major large city in the US. The idea that nobody plays hockey in places like Texas California Arizona and Florida should have been disproven by the stars coming out of there.


The NHL knows that international expansion of their brand is a #1 priority. It's why the NFL plays in London. It's their main focus right now and it's just a question of what is the best way forward for that.

 

[sandysan]

Soccer in the US is not a poor persons sport.

The NHL knows that international expansion of their brand is a #1 priority. It's why the NFL plays in London. It's their main focus right now and it's just a question of what is the best way forward for that.

Sez Who ? again with the nonsensical comparisons. The NFL plays once a week, a team in the NHL can play more in a month than a NFL team plays an entire season.

The NHL is STILL very much a gate driven league. The NHL needs fans from MARKETS with extant teams, a bunch of dedicated fans in europe does not have the revenues that getting more people in current markets is a drop in the bucket.

This notion that people in europe are gonna tune in to a wednesday night game between the jets and the habs at some ungodly hour is nonsense.

As to what's bolded its probably more expensive than watching grass grow, but it's not in the same league as the costs of hockey. Canada has TONS of publically supported rinks and there is still very real concern that despite subsidizing everything from equipment and ice time, that people from the middle class down are being economically excluded.

this might sting a little but the NHL has FAR bigger concerns that a smattering of NHL fans from europe. international expansion, you might get nhl europe in a decade or two which is even money to have the same fate as NFL europe. hazaaah!

 

[Xokkeu]

Sez Who ? again with the nonsensical comparisons. The NFL plays once a week, a team in the NHL can play more in a month than a NFL team plays an entire season.

The NHL is STILL very much a gate driven league. The NHL needs fans from MARKETS with extant teams, a bunch of dedicated fans in europe does not have the revenues that getting more people in current markets is a drop in the bucket.

This notion that people in europe are gonna tune in to a wednesday night game between the jets and the habs at some ungodly hour is nonsense.

As to what's bolded its probably more expensive than watching grass grow, but it's not in the same league as the costs of hockey. Canada has TONS of publically supported rinks and there is still very real concern that despite subsidizing everything from equipment and ice time, that people from the middle class down are being economically excluded.

this might sting a little but the NHL has FAR bigger concerns that a smattering of NHL fans from europe. international expansion, you might get nhl europe in a decade or two which is even money to have the same fate as NFL europe. hazaaah!

It's not an exclusion. Just because Europeans or Chinese fans watch the games North Americans don't get to attend them.

The rest I don't get the point about NFL schedules and cost of hockey but okay.

 

[Nino33]

One of the NHL's biggest problems is the lack of bring-fans-out-of-their seats hockey talent.....So they do need to grow the game to protect profits

Olympic hockey is the most boring hockey of all & North Americans don't seem to find the European/Russian Leagues worth watching so I don't think making the game have even less defense/contact is going to "protect profits" (the NHL's attendance/profits aren't bad at all & it's the League where 99% of the best "bring-fans-out-of-their seats hockey talent" plays)




The NHL participation in the Olympics have done nothing discernible to improve things for the NHL; the idea that States in the US that have NHL teams have seen an increase in participation due to the Olympics makes no sense to me (since Matthews was born minor hockey registration in Arizona has more than doubled from 3K to 7K.....why wouldn't that connect to the Coyotes presence? why do some assume the Olympics had something to do with it? In the same way why wouldn't an increase in hockey participation in California connect to the fact there's 3 NHL teams in the State?)

And not being able to understand the enormous cost differences between soccer and hockey is totally baffling to me (in Canada they're building more indoor soccer facilities than ice rinks; indoor soccer facilities cost so much less than ice rinks to build/maintain and run...in Canada it's to expensive for most communities to build/maintain the rinks and to expensive for most people to play the game - I don't see countries with little to no significant interest previously investing in the rinks needed to play the game)

 

[Jussi]

Olympic hockey is the most boring hockey of all

That's just like your opinion, man. 2006 Olympics are still to most Finns the most memorable hockey touranment when it comes to the level of our play. Not forgetting Selänne's last game for the national team either. Beating USA 5-0 for the bronze in 2014 is one of the most cherished hockey moments.

 

[Nino33]

That's just like your opinion, man. 2006 Olympics are still to most Finns the most memorable hockey touranment when it comes to the level of our play. Not forgetting Selänne's last game for the national team either. Beating USA 5-0 for the bronze in 2014 is one of the most cherished hockey moments.

I didn't think I was speaking for anyone else but myself, so of course it was my opinion. I can't imagine a Bronze medal ever being a "cherished hockey memory"

3rd place games aren't something most (any?) North American sports even have, and they're not something many (any?) North American fans even care about

 

[garbageteam]

Today's NHL hockey is the most boring hockey of all, and that's just my opinion, man.

The NHL is a declining product and could frankly use an infusion of interest from the international market. I can barely sit through one period of the entire regular season much less an full game nowadays but relish the idea of watching almost every TC WJC game. But debating over who thinks what is more interesting is stupid and pointless - we may as well devolve into arguing about whether golf is more interesting than hockey.

I don't really care who pays, just someone please pay up. Anyone. The money's there to be made - perhaps it's not fairly distributed, but the audience for Olympic hockey is massive. It certainly presents a better business case than some lifeless franchises that the NHL insists on propping up.

 

[JackSlater]

It will be interesting to see if Fasel follows through. Not sure that is what IIHF money is supposed to be for. Also interesting to see what the NHL would do, since there are indications (especially in the story linked below) that the NHL wants out of the Olympics regardless of this insurance issue.

http://www.tsn.ca/clock-ticking-on-nhl-olympic-decision-1.607878

This part of the TSN story in particular catches the eye:

"But let's assume for the moment that Fasel and others come up with some money and logistical plans to address the outstanding issues with the NHL. What then?

Well, never say never, but it's not going to be easy to convince the NHL to get on board.

First, if it's not the IOC making the required financial concessions to get NHLers there, the NHL will view any IIHF-led efforts to cover the costs as a horrible precedent. That is, effectively giving the IOC something for nothing — NHL player participation without shouldering the costs involved. In other words, it's the principle of the thing.

Second, the NHL doesn't like the idea of the IIHF using its funds for something that the IOC should be responsible for, that every IIHF dollar spent on getting NHLers to the Olympics is one less dollar going to real efforts to develop the international game at the grassroots level.

Fasel may well tell the NHL that's not its concern, that where the money comes from is a moot point so long as the IIHF finds it and it's not coming out of NHL pockets. And having NHL players in PyeongChang is, in fact, a boon to development of hockey throughout the world.

But the truth is the NHL is going to be mightily predisposed to not look favorably on any IIHF concoction."

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

It will be interesting to see if Fasel follows through. Not sure that is what IIHF money is supposed to be for. Also interesting to see what the NHL would do, since there are indications (especially in the story linked below) that the NHL wants out of the Olympics regardless of this insurance issue.

http://www.tsn.ca/clock-ticking-on-nhl-olympic-decision-1.607878

This part of the TSN story in particular catches the eye:

"But let's assume for the moment that Fasel and others come up with some money and logistical plans to address the outstanding issues with the NHL. What then?

Well, never say never, but it's not going to be easy to convince the NHL to get on board.

First, if it's not the IOC making the required financial concessions to get NHLers there, the NHL will view any IIHF-led efforts to cover the costs as a horrible precedent. That is, effectively giving the IOC something for nothing — NHL player participation without shouldering the costs involved. In other words, it's the principle of the thing.

Second, the NHL doesn't like the idea of the IIHF using its funds for something that the IOC should be responsible for, that every IIHF dollar spent on getting NHLers to the Olympics is one less dollar going to real efforts to develop the international game at the grassroots level.

Fasel may well tell the NHL that's not its concern, that where the money comes from is a moot point so long as the IIHF finds it and it's not coming out of NHL pockets. And having NHL players in PyeongChang is, in fact, a boon to development of hockey throughout the world.

But the truth is the NHL is going to be mightily predisposed to not look favorably on any IIHF concoction."

I can't find it, but national federations are also involved in this perhaps, from the earliest words, or it could just the Russian Olympic Committee which will cover all ii's players as they've said.

 

[paul-laus]

Let's be honest, it doesn't matter if the insurance and travel costs are covered now. The NHL decided a long time ago that they didn't want to attend Korea and will make every excuse not to. This is fine up until the point where the NHL feels as though they should be able to pick and choose which events suit them for "growth of the game" in terms of bypassing this event but likely making every effort to go to China in 2022. Ridiculous. If your decision is the relationship doesn't benefit the NHL and it's a one sided arrangement, then stick with that instead of picking and choosing which games work for you depending on locale. Bettman and the owners are so predictable with how this will go....

 

[Xokkeu]

Let's be honest, it doesn't matter if the insurance and travel costs are covered now. The NHL decided a long time ago that they didn't want to attend Korea and will make every excuse not to. This is fine up until the point where the NHL feels as though they should be able to pick and choose which events suit them for "growth of the game" in terms of bypassing this event but likely making every effort to go to China in 2022. Ridiculous. If your decision is the relationship doesn't benefit the NHL and it's a one sided arrangement, then stick with that instead of picking and choosing which games work for you depending on locale. Bettman and the owners are so predictable with how this will go....

At this point it's up to the players to make a point that they want to go. That's about the only way it happens

 

[Nino33]

Let's be honest, it doesn't matter if the insurance and travel costs are covered now. The NHL decided a long time ago that they didn't want to attend Korea and will make every excuse not to. This is fine up until the point where the NHL feels as though they should be able to pick and choose which events suit them for "growth of the game" in terms of bypassing this event but likely making every effort to go to China in 2022. Ridiculous. If your decision is the relationship doesn't benefit the NHL and it's a one sided arrangement, then stick with that instead of picking and choosing which games work for you depending on locale. Bettman and the owners are so predictable with how this will go....

The IOC's decisions are only for the benefit of the IOC & the argument about skipping South Korea while wanting to be in China is just pure speculation (a strawman argument so the NHL can be bashed)

At this point it's up to the players to make a point that they want to go. That's about the only way it happens

I don't think the NHL players will care enough to make such a point (IMO the Olympics aren't that important to the vast majority of NHLers, regardless of their country of origin/nationality)

 

[Knave]

I mean... China is over a billion people and there are a lot of Chinese people who come to North America - for school, for work exchanges, for tourism.

The potential is big. South Korea is what? 1 1/2 times the size of Canada population wise?

Do you really shut down your league for 2 weeks so the IOC can take your players and make money off them? The IOC isn't giving the NHL any chance to really promote itself or use any content. That's problematic from the perspective of the NHL who are the ones losing out (not the IOC - even if they foot insurance bills).

The size of a market like China and the high profile nature of hockey at the Winter Olympics makes it important for the NHL to send the best players in the world but the small size of South Korea is not worth it.

 

[Nino33]

I don't think it matters so much how many people there are in China, but how many actually have "disposable income for additional entertainment" and that number is a small fraction of the total population.....IMO the big market of China for hockey is nowhere near as big as some think it is

 

[xxxx]

I posted this post in the Bussiness section and since those two threads are basically about the same, I just copied that here:


The NHL's problems, and the con's of sending its players to the olympics, were never related to paying the insurance money, that's a problem that just came up this year with the decision of the IOC and it made the situation even harder to solve. So I'm not sure how can anyone expect the NHL to be "thankful" the IOC is eventually going to (partly) pay for something they should anyway, and what was automatic in the past, and on top of that, it's not even the IOC, it's the IIHF mainly and apparently their initiative and decision.

I believe they will eventually come up with an agreement and we will see the NHL players at the olympics again, but I'm not sure it's done based on current circumstances. Covering the insurance money isn't going to be enough in my opinion. Well, let's see.


and just to be clear, Fasel is on NHL's side in covering the insurance problem:

“They should never pay,” said Fasel. “This is for me, this is a very important jewel. They should not cover the insurance and the transportation. It’s a word I gave them since the beginning.