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

[Frank the Skank]

Watching the nfl right now. All of the coaches on the sidelines are in team apparel with a rainbow patch on them. Just as a comparison of what another league is doing.
2 weeks from now you will see a bunch of pink tape and towels on the players for breast cancer awareness. I assume they will also continue their support the troops and have camouflage towels and apparel around veterans days.

NFL Players also have messages for personal causes on their helmets. NFL is the exact opposite of the NHL in this regard.

Edit: not their own personal causes, apparently there's 7 different messages they can choose from. Still miles ahead of the NHL

 

[TheLegend]

SPC:

"2. The Player agrees to give his services and to play hockey in all NHL Games, All Star Games, International Hockey Games and Exhibition Games to the best of his ability under the direction and control of the Club in accordance with the provisions hereof.

The Player further agrees,

(d) to co-operate with the Club and participate in any and all reasonable promotional activities of the Club which will in the opinion of the Club promote the welfare of the Club and to cooperate in the promotion of the League and professional hockey generally"

Don’t see it where putting pride tape on a stick is in violation of that. League is pro-diversity, is it not? So in essence the player is meeting the same goals as the league is.

 

[Crosby2010]

I would say Bud Light is the poster boy for what happens when you push an unpopular thing. The NHL sees this, so that is what they chose to do.

 

[daver]

I know several LGBT+ folks who are unhappy with the league and its decision to ban pride tape when they themselves were attracted to the sport because of it, and the perception of inclusivity. By taking a stand against it, they're not just alienating the people who were interested in the sport because of that, but also undermining their "hockey is for everyone" marketing.

So what if more people feel that these are just superficial symbols and feed unhealthy attention on one's identity when society is pushing for indifference. Specifically for the LGBT, why do something that makes them feel that they are viewed differently when no-one should care about their sexual identity.

From strictly a business perspective, if the league feels more me people have a negative reaction to these initiatives then it makes sense to not do it.

 

[nhlfan79]

Specifically for the LGBT, why do something that makes them feel that they are viewed differently when no-one should care about their sexual identity.

This has it exactly backwards. If no one cared about another's sexual identity, there wouldn't be a perceived need for an inclusion initiative. But a certain shrinking, but vocal, segment still do seem to care about others' sexual identity quite a lot. Thus, the need to show the targeted group that they are actually welcome in the sport.

It will be nice when everyone learns to live and let live.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I would say Bud Light is the poster boy for what happens when you push an unpopular thing. The NHL sees this, so that is what they chose to do.

“Push” as in do a single instagram promo with a trans woman. The horror.

 

[daver]

This has it exactly backwards. If no one cared about another's sexual identity, there wouldn't be a perceived need for an inclusion initiative. But a certain shrinking, but vocal, segment still do seem to care about others' sexual identity quite a lot. Thus, the need to show the targeted group that they are actually welcome in the sport.

It will be nice when everyone learns to live and let live.

Forcing "inclusivity" will not change things. It tends to get people's heals dug in more.

Why not let the people with particular religious beliefs "live and let live"? The players were willing to play in games that celebrated Pride but were not willing to have something effectively forced on them.

They were being tolerant of LGBT and not being discriminatory or hateful, so why shouldn't the same be asked of the LGBT towards them?

And back to the OP, why in the hell would a business be expected to get into the weeds of these questions?

 

[GKJ]

NFL Players also have messages for personal causes on their helmets. NFL is the exact opposite of the NHL in this regard.

Edit: not their own personal causes, apparently there's 7 different messages they can choose from. Still miles ahead of the NHL

They’re supposed to have a week where they give visibility for whatever cause they want. This started similarly to what the NHL is falling backwards into where Brandon Marshall went on his own and the NFL clapped at him and he basically said it was bullshit and did it anyways and paid the fine, so the NFL looked bad and changed it. The story was what he was trying to do and not what was trying to be not done.

It would’ve been fine if it was how it worked in the NHL. But hockey players/culture are so robotic and vanilla that no one would hardly think to do anything (those who would have been seen as too self-serving), so teams/the league needed to go into corporate philanthropy mode and have players go along with it.

 

[Albatros]

Forcing "inclusivity" will not change things. It tends to get people's heals dug in more.

Why not let the people with particular religious beliefs "live and let live"? The players were willing to play in games that celebrated Pride but were not willing to have something effectively forced on them.

They were being tolerant of LGBT and not being discriminatory or hateful, so why shouldn't the same be asked of the LGBT towards them?

And back to the OP, why in the hell would a business be expected to get into the weeds of these questions?

If that's the case then we can either force inclusion or accept exclusion. That would not be entirely different to breaking the color barrier back in the day.

 

[daver]

If that's the case then we can either force inclusion or accept exclusion. That would not be entirely different to breaking the color barrier back in the day.

What were the players doing that was exclusionary? They are free to hold their beliefs aren't they as long as they do not discriminate or commit a hate crime?

 

[Albatros]

What were the players doing that was exclusionary? They are free to hold their beliefs aren't they as long as they do not discriminate or commit a hate crime?

The players are just employees, it's the league that has to ensure inclusion.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Could you imagine if people wanted to start up themed stick tape for this Middle East mess right now? No thank you

So apparently at the Oilers home opener the team flashed a "We stand with Israel" on the videoboard.

I won't say it was a massive backlash, but I certainly did see a backlash on Twitter, with people pointing out the team's owner is Jewish, plus pointing out how it supposedly conflicted with the land acknowledgement that happened right after.

 

[Strangle]

So apparently at the Oilers home opener the team flashed a "We stand with Israel" on the videoboard.

I won't say it was a massive backlash, but I certainly did see a backlash on Twitter, with people pointing out the team's owner is Jewish, plus pointing out how it supposedly conflicted with the land acknowledgement that happened right after.

Right!

 

[Yukon Joe]

I would say Bud Light is the poster boy for what happens when you push an unpopular thing. The NHL sees this, so that is what they chose to do.

So lets talk about the Bud Light example (and again, in a purely business perspective).

So Bud Light partnered with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney. This became one of those internet viral things, which suddenly led to numerous calls for boycotts of Bud Light, and performative stunts like Kid Rock shooting at some Bud Light cans. This led to a noticeable drop in sales of Bud Light.

Anheiseur Busch announced the two execs responsible had left the company and they would focus on sports and music in their marketing.

But this then led to a backlash on the pro-trans side of the internet, with now other performers calling for a boycott against AB because of how it backed down in the face of the controversy.

So what can we learn from this?

First of all - @Crosby2010 is talking about pushing "an unpopular thing". The thing here though isn't gay rights - it's trans rights. And I wouldn't say it's "unpopular", but I would agree it's "controversial".

So when Provorov did his thing - it wasn't about trans rights specifically, but the more broader LGBT rainbow umbrella (which yes includes trans). I don't think "Pride" is "controversial" in this day and age. The story gained negative attention, but didn't result in anybody calling for boycotts of the NHL, and seems like it would have blown over.

Second - giving in to negative pressure risks getting just as much negative pressure going the opposite way.

 

[Yukon Joe]

As an aside, I went to re-tape my stip this weekend. I realized we had a roll of rainbow tape. I've never used it (I'm not typically that kind of guy), but this week I'm rocking rainbow tape at men's league. We'll see how it goes.

 

[dj4aces]

So what if more people feel that these are just superficial symbols and feed unhealthy attention on one's identity when society is pushing for indifference. Specifically for the LGBT, why do something that makes them feel that they are viewed differently when no-one should care about their sexual identity.

From strictly a business perspective, if the league feels more me people have a negative reaction to these initiatives then it makes sense to not do it.

Perhaps, until you considjer that it was never a mandate to *use rainbow tape*. Furthermore, despite the ban, NHL teams and players are continuing to order the tape. The use of themed stick tape was voluntary, and many players did it to show their support. The use of sweaters, however, was a part of team mandates. The sweater issue was never a problem until themed pride sweaters became a thing.

What we see here is the league clearly not understanding or not caring that they picked a hill to die on that runs counter to how a majority of fans and players feel, all to cater to the minority of fans and the seven players who're butthurt over rainbows. It's just silly. What's gonna be really interesting to see is, will the league fine players and/or teams who refuse to comply with the ban, or will they revert the ban? At what point will the league realize they stared at a bear trap, shrugged, and stepped right on in it anyway?

Like I said, this wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't taken a position. It instantly became a political choice once they picked a side, not a business choice. By making such a political choice, they alienated new and existing fans, and thus have run afoul of their own marketing.

 

[daver]

The players are just employees, it's the league that has to ensure inclusion.

Does the league have a policy that says it does not allow certain people to play in the NHL? No?

There, is has ensured inclusion. Not allowing rainbow tape = non inclusivity is infantilizing.

There are plenty of opportunities for individual players, or anyone for that matter to do something meaningful for LGBT if they really want to. Not caring about their identity is good enough for me and for most people.

 

[daver]

Perhaps, until you considjer that it was never a mandate to *use rainbow tape*. Furthermore, despite the ban, NHL teams and players are continuing to order the tape. The use of themed stick tape was voluntary, and many players did it to show their support. The use of sweaters, however, was a part of team mandates. The sweater issue was never a problem until themed pride sweaters became a thing.

What we see here is the league clearly not understanding or not caring that they picked a hill to die on that runs counter to how a majority of fans and players feel, all to cater to the minority of fans and the seven players who're butthurt over rainbows. It's just silly. What's gonna be really interesting to see is, will the league fine players and/or teams who refuse to comply with the ban, or will they revert the ban? At what point will the league realize they stared at a bear trap, shrugged, and stepped right on in it anyway?

Like I said, this wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't taken a position. It instantly became a political choice once they picked a side, not a business choice. By making such a political choice, they alienated new and existing fans, and thus have run afoul of their own marketing.

They picked a political side to allow this in the first place.

I highly doubt that fans are going to leave the sport because the NHL choose to focus their operations on hockey, not on something that has nothing to do with their sport.

That doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

The sweater issue was never a problem until themed pride sweaters became a thing.

Funny enough it wasn't even a problem when pride sweaters became a thing.

 

[Albatros]

Does the league have a policy that says it does not allow certain people to play in the NHL? No?

There, is has ensured inclusion. Not allowing rainbow tape = non inclusivity is infantilizing.

There are plenty of opportunities for individual players, or anyone for that matter to do something meaningful for LGBT if they really want to. Not caring about their identity is good enough for me and for most people.

Don't say gay type policies are in no way contributing to inclusion, on the contrary. Also the color barriers in most cases weren't codified at all, yet breaking them was just as challenging as if they were. There are LGBT athletes in the league today, when they can be who they are openly then and only then has inclusion succeeded to any meaningful extent.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks, convince me that this is currently a "business" topic and not a "politics" topic.

No need (or desire on my part) for you to directly convince me. Convince me by the way that you continue to have the discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Look Up]

Can somebody please recap why this tread is in the "business of hockey forum"?

 

[daver]

Don't say gay type policies are in no way contributing to inclusion, on the contrary. Also the color barriers in most cases weren't codified at all, yet breaking them was just as challenging as if they were. There are LGBT athletes in the league today, when they can be who they are openly then and only then has inclusion succeeded to any meaningful extent.

What the hell is going on when a company's policies can apparently be classified as "Say Gay" and "Don't Say Gay".

Given it was a very small number of players (five?) out of 800 that, within their rights, made an individual choice to not participate fully (they did play in the game) would seem to give a clear indication that the league is "inclusive" would it not?

When the work "still needs to be done", it will be never be done.

Time to move on.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Folks, convince me that this is currently a "business" topic and not a "politics" topic.

No need (or desire on my part) for you to directly convince me. Convince me by the way that you continue to have the discussion.

Understood about the last sentence, but let me try to explain.

Fundamentally banning pride tape, or banning special warm-up decisions, is a business decision by the league. That is - does banning pride tape (or conversely not banning it) lead to better or worse publicity, and thus is it better or worse for the league's bottom line.

I'll admit a bunch of posters have gone above and beyond that argument, and I rather wish they wouldn't.

 

[Jumptheshark]

here is the thing. I understand why it was done. But there is a catch 22. They ban this but allow other things that are just as political but is supported by those who do not like the pride thing.

That is where the NHL is falling off the cliff. You have to blanket ban everything on game day. You just can not pick and choose what you do.

This confuses me

Folks, convince me that this is currently a "business" topic and not a "politics" topic.

No need (or desire on my part) for you to directly convince me. Convince me by the way that you continue to have the discussion.

Thanks.

it is a politics topic. There is no way to hide it. Several NHL teams will be having support the troop nights and for many that is a problematic as pride night(mostly because politicians show up).

From a business perspective the NHL is in a no win situation. If they ban teams from having support the troop nights--the same people who hated Pride night will be up in arm over that ban