A positive thread about the ASG women's 3 on 3 match

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rich Nixon

No Prior Knowledge of "Flyers"
Jul 11, 2006
14,941
18,809
Key Biscayne
Ok, but we're talking corporate America here. As I've said, the existence of the WNBA is pure charity. It hasn't gone in the green for over 20 years, EVER. Now the WNBA players are complaining they don't earn enough.

Franchises tanking financially will eventually be sold and moved. Where will you move the entire WNBA league, if it cannot function in North America? Or what is the point here? Should NBA fans be taxated to finance a league they have absolutely no interest in watching? Should NHL fans be taxated to finance a WNHL league that no one wants to watch? What is the point of all this? Why is it so important to give women an athletic career that cannot sustain itself and that no one wants to watch?

If I want to create a pocket ping pong league, where I furiously move my hands in my pockets towards my crotch, in front of an audience and I can convince the NHL this is a good idea, are you ok with financing this through a taxation on your game tickets?

And even if we're not talking corporate America, I will in no way in hell be ok with financing women's salaries in professional sports, simply because of the demand of equality in outcome.

"taxated" isn't a word, and no one here is talking about taxes. I don't know why you think a government is going to force you to buy NHL tickets and/or merchandise and then levy a tax on top to pay for women's athletics. Unless that's the scenario, you're using the word wrong*.

And you're the second dude to throw an "YEAH BUT IF I WANTED TO DO SOME STUPID THING SHOULD I EXPECT OTHER PEOPLE TO-" hypothetical at me in this thread. It was just as dumb when the other guy did it a few pages ago. Is your position that shoddy? Same answer as the other guy: No one has ever expressed any attention or interest to your crotch shenanigans, but whether you like it or not, however, people do report on, discuss (like this!), and occasionally even watch women's hockey.

Are there enough of them to make a business venture work, if your expectation is to lose some money, but not lose too much money? Maybe, probably not.

My overarching point here, for like 5 pages, is that I don't see a very large difference in how money is lost or wasted by these large businesses. They know they're throwing some away every year, they always will on something or other. No one expresses outrage at that, usually--though you do get some folks passionate about revenue sharing and how small market teams need to f*** off, etc--but on dumb vanity projects, bad investments, and cringeworthy entertainment, no one makes a peep.

But if the league were to lose a similar amount of money on a modest, probably-doomed women's venture (that may operate as a net positive marketing apparatus for a year or two of its existence), that would really piss people off. And that distinction to me is, for a lack of a better word, hilarious. It's too selective for me to believe this is all rooted in peoples' sincere commitment to fiscal responsibility.

*You know what actual tax for pro sports would look like? That would be what the good Flyers fans (and all other citizens) of Pennsylvania pay for the Pittsburgh Penguins to play in their current arena. You know, the team that just won back to back Cups a couple years back--yeah, we'll be paying for their arena for a while still, it used state funds. you don't like subsidizing sports teams you don't support? ha, well, a lot of us 'muricans already do, with our literal tax money. I'm sure you have American counterparts who would be pissed if some of the price they paid for their Blackhawks hat went towards a women's league, but are totally fine with the fact that (or totally unaware that) some of their paycheck goes to an NFL stadium for the next 30 years.

Anyway, the scrimmage was fun.
 
Last edited:

JIMVINNY

Registered User
Nov 9, 2007
616
41
"taxated" isn't a word, and no one here is talking about taxes. I don't know why you think a government is going to force you to buy NHL tickets and/or merchandise and then levy a tax on top to pay for women's athletics. Unless that's the scenario, you're using the word wrong*.

And you're the second dude to throw an "YEAH BUT IF I WANTED TO DO SOME STUPID THING SHOULD I EXPECT OTHER PEOPLE TO-" hypothetical at me in this thread. It was just as dumb when the other guy did it a few pages ago. Is your position that shoddy? Same answer as the other guy: No one has ever expressed any attention or interest to your crotch shenanigans, but whether you like it or not, however, people do report on, discuss (like this!), and occasionally even watch women's hockey.

Are there enough of them to make a business venture work, if your expectation is to lose some money, but not lose too much money? Maybe, probably not.

My overarching point here, for like 5 pages, is that I don't see a very large difference in how money is lost or wasted by these large businesses. They know they're throwing some away every year, they always will on something or other. No one expresses outrage at that, usually--though you do get some folks passionate about revenue sharing and how small market teams need to **** off, etc--but on dumb vanity projects, bad investments, and cringeworthy entertainment, no one makes a peep.

But if the league were to lose a similar amount of money on a modest, probably-doomed women's venture (that may operate as a net positive marketing apparatus for a year or two of its existence), that would really piss people off. And that distinction to me is, for a lack of a better word, hilarious. It's too selective for me to believe this is all rooted in peoples' sincere commitment to fiscal responsibility.

*You know what actual tax for pro sports would look like? That would be what the good Flyers fans (and all other citizens) of Pennsylvania pay for the Pittsburgh Penguins to play in their current arena. You know, the team that just won back to back Cups a couple years back--yeah, we'll be paying for their arena for a while still, it used state funds. you don't like subsidizing sports teams you don't support? ha, well, a lot of us 'muricans already do, with our literal tax money. I'm sure you have American counterparts who would be pissed if some of the price they paid for their Blackhawks hat went towards a women's league, but are totally fine with the fact that (or totally unaware that) some of their paycheck goes to an NFL stadium for the next 30 years.

Anyway, the scrimmage was fun.

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I have no problem if the NHL owners want to subsidize a women's league. What I have a problem with is these female hockey players EXPECTING and DEMANDING that someone pay them a living wage to play hockey at a level far below that of any other paid players, simply because they have two X chromosomes.

This asinine protest that some of these women have decided to engage in is an affront to equality and fairness. If these women want to be paid, they need to prove that there is an audience that wants to pay to see them. Exactly as female tennis players and female golfers have done.
 

Rich Nixon

No Prior Knowledge of "Flyers"
Jul 11, 2006
14,941
18,809
Key Biscayne
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I have no problem if the NHL owners want to subsidize a women's league. What I have a problem with is these female hockey players EXPECTING and DEMANDING that someone pay them a living wage to play hockey at a level far below that of any other paid players, simply because they have two X chromosomes.

What do you think a living wage is?

Also, I take it you've never asked for a raise or anything? There's likely people in India who do your job better than you do for less money. It's almost like that's a whole different situation, as a top-tier women's league would be from a third- or fifth-tier men's league. Different product, different market.

Why is it a problem? NBA G-League players now make $7,000 a month as a base salary ($35k total for a 5-month season) and running up to $125k a season, with some potential for an NBA call-up. WNBA salaries are similar: about a $41k base salary, up to $110k for premier players. They do roughly the same paid attendance numbers every year, despite the WNBA having less than half as many teams and games (meaning, the WNBA is a much bigger attraction). The G-League isn't often televised, the WNBA is. Both mostly operate at a loss and are propped up by the big league: One recoups slightly more of its expenses, the other houses prospects.

So, there's your direct, in-house comparison between a lower-level men's developmental league and a top-tier women's league, both owned and operated by a premier men's pro league. They aren't direct competitors, they target different geographic and demographic markets, they serve different purposes, and the players are paid similar amounts. They both allow fans to get up close to a very high level of basketball competition at a more accessible price point than the big show. The WNBA game is a lower level than the G-League, most likely, but on average more people pay to go see it--as I suspect would be an achievable goal in hockey, were people to go that route.

So, is your argument that low-level hockey or basketball players without any professional prospects also should not be paid a living wage? Because the ECHL sure as hell isn't profitable, either, and paychecks down there kinda suck...but they're still better than anything women's leagues have ever had. Basically all those teams are losing money.
 
Last edited:

Chimpradamus

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
16,634
5,249
Northern Sweden
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I have no problem if the NHL owners want to subsidize a women's league. What I have a problem with is these female hockey players EXPECTING and DEMANDING that someone pay them a living wage to play hockey at a level far below that of any other paid players, simply because they have two X chromosomes.

This asinine protest that some of these women have decided to engage in is an affront to equality and fairness. If these women want to be paid, they need to prove that there is an audience that wants to pay to see them. Exactly as female tennis players and female golfers have done.
Exactly. Equality of outcome - when it suits one gender, where equality of opportunity is nowhere to be seen. Can't say anything more as this post will be deleted otherwise, as it's apparently too political to state this obvious hypocrisy. "Free speech" and so on.
 
Last edited:

sandysan

Registered User
Dec 7, 2011
24,834
6,388
Does a women's league need to be profitable for it to be a good thing that women's hockey players are getting some more exposure in events like these?

Like, what are we complaining about, exactly?

profitable ? no
sustainable on the other hand would kind of be important.

the two are related for sure, because if we have a series of failed women's leagues that go bust and disappear I am not sure how that helps.

And I am not sure how " getting some more exposure" ( whatever that means) is a metric worth subsiding. but it aint my money
 

Cruoris

Devourer of goals
Jul 24, 2014
831
62
I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I have no problem if the NHL owners want to subsidize a women's league. What I have a problem with is these female hockey players EXPECTING and DEMANDING that someone pay them a living wage to play hockey at a level far below that of any other paid players, simply because they have two X chromosomes.

This asinine protest that some of these women have decided to engage in is an affront to equality and fairness. If these women want to be paid, they need to prove that there is an audience that wants to pay to see them. Exactly as female tennis players and female golfers have done.

Soooooooo... they should continue playing, but starve or freeze to death living out of their cars or something is what you're saying.
 

Surrounded By Ahos

Las Vegas Desert Ducks Official Team Poster
Sponsor
May 24, 2008
26,151
80,587
Koko Miami
I just don’t get how we got from discussing a scrimmage during an all star weekend to discussing the viability of and the market for a women’s hockey league. We’re so wildly off topic this shitshow should just be locked and somebody should make a new thread in the Business forum.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
Does a women's league need to be profitable for it to be a good thing that women's hockey players are getting some more exposure in events like these?

Like, what are we complaining about, exactly?
I've said this from the beginning, as long as it doesn't effect the NHL money, I couldn't care less. I think most people are saying that a womens league prob doesn't last unless its being funded by the NHL. Can the NHL afford to take on the loss of money it will have to give up funding this league and will that effect money going into the NHL? I think thats the main concern fans like myself have.
 

JIMVINNY

Registered User
Nov 9, 2007
616
41
Soooooooo... they should continue playing, but starve or freeze to death living out of their cars or something is what you're saying.
Or, you know, find a job that pays a living wage? Recognize that their skill level is not where it needs to be for them to demand to be paid at the same rate as men far more capable than they are?
 

JIMVINNY

Registered User
Nov 9, 2007
616
41
What do you think a living wage is?

Also, I take it you've never asked for a raise or anything? There's likely people in India who do your job better than you do for less money. It's almost like that's a whole different situation, as a top-tier women's league would be from a third- or fifth-tier men's league. Different product, different market.

Why is it a problem? NBA G-League players now make $7,000 a month as a base salary ($35k total for a 5-month season) and running up to $125k a season, with some potential for an NBA call-up. WNBA salaries are similar: about a $41k base salary, up to $110k for premier players. They do roughly the same paid attendance numbers every year, despite the WNBA having less than half as many teams and games (meaning, the WNBA is a much bigger attraction). The G-League isn't often televised, the WNBA is. Both mostly operate at a loss and are propped up by the big league: One recoups slightly more of its expenses, the other houses prospects.

So, there's your direct, in-house comparison between a lower-level men's developmental league and a top-tier women's league, both owned and operated by a premier men's pro league. They aren't direct competitors, they target different geographic and demographic markets, they serve different purposes, and the players are paid similar amounts. They both allow fans to get up close to a very high level of basketball competition at a more accessible price point than the big show. The WNBA game is a lower level than the G-League, most likely, but on average more people pay to go see it--as I suspect would be an achievable goal in hockey, were people to go that route.

So, is your argument that low-level hockey or basketball players without any professional prospects also should not be paid a living wage? Because the ECHL sure as hell isn't profitable, either, basically all those teams are losing money.

You're probably right that there's some guy india better at my job, but being paid less. Thing is, I'm not moving to india to work alongside that fellow and demanding that I continue to be paid my current wage. This is what you're advocating for.

As for your next three paragraphs, please see the first sentence of my post. If the NBA wants to subsidize other leagues, good on them, it's their money, their choice. I don't know why you felt the need to write an essay convincing me of something I'd already accepted.
 

Frank Drebin

He's just a child
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2004
33,478
19,467
Edmonton
Does a women's league need to be profitable for it to be a good thing that women's hockey players are getting some more exposure in events like these?

Like, what are we complaining about, exactly?
There are two separate discussions here. I think their 20 minute game during the all star game scratches the itch for most fans that want to see womens hockey.

The other discussion is subsidizing the womens league so that they can afford to play. Why? No one watches them, what sense does it make to subsidize a product that no one wants to buy? Its basically a tax on the fans, the players and the owners....so that these girls can make a living playing hockey. The principle behind it makes no sense to me. Drop in the proverbial financial bucket or not.
 

Rich Nixon

No Prior Knowledge of "Flyers"
Jul 11, 2006
14,941
18,809
Key Biscayne
You're probably right that there's some guy india better at my job, but being paid less. Thing is, I'm not moving to india to work alongside that fellow and demanding that I continue to be paid my current wage. This is what you're advocating for.

As for your next three paragraphs, please see the first sentence of my post. If the NBA wants to subsidize other leagues, good on them, it's their money, their choice. I don't know why you felt the need to write an essay convincing me of something I'd already accepted.

Likewise, the women aren't going to be walking into NHL locker rooms (or AHL ones, for that matter) and demanding NHL or AHL salaries either, so the comparison stands. It's a different market, they're no more competing for NHL salaries than the dude in India is for yours. I'm not advocating for really anything, I'm providing a lot of context and asking a lot of questions. You wanna participate in an argument, then let's flesh your side of it out.

The ECHL and almost all of its teams lose money every year and the average player gets $560 a week and free housing--not great money, but that does qualify as a living wage, though you could make more full-time and year-round at a hardware store.

Do you think ECHL players with no NHL potential should be paid less than they currently are because the league is not profitable? Do you think ECHL players should recognize that their skill level is not where it needs to be for them to demand to be paid at the rate they currently are, and that their pay should be decreased, and if they don't like it they should go get other jobs? It's not a setup--if you feel that way about the women's game then it's probably the same answer, and that's a perfectly logical position to take.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->