Hockey Canada Registrations & The High Costs of Hockey

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Thanks for posting the update on the article.... I think this topic best suited for Business of Hockey so moving it here.... Carry on...
 

Joe Hallenback

Moderator
Mar 4, 2005
15,358
21,345
I think the idea of different levels of hockey is a good one

Except its all geared now for probably 20 to 50 kids depending on the size of your province. What I mean is AAA/prep school hockey is for developing kids that may have a chance at Junior/NCAA.

For instance AAA hockey in Manitoba has roughly 10 teams per level. Which equates to say 200 kids total per age group. I would say only 20 of those ever move on to the WHL/NCAA per year who play full time at those levels. The rest maybe end playing Junior A/B hockey.

Average cost per year of AAA total is probably 15K. Pre School is probably 30K. If your kids isn't the top player or players on his team you are basically paying to push those kids onto the next level.

I have 1 boy who is 17 now and 1 girl who is much younger. The boy is my step son and he started playing hockey when he was 7 when and his mother got together. He started in House League, then played A2,A1,AA then AAA hockey.

The WHL does these seminars for parents and kids. They tell you that buying the best or at least the most expensive equipment is not nesscesary. The difference between a 60 dollar stick and a 300 dollar stick is 240 dollars. Your 13 year old can't tell the difference and it doesn't make a difference. Yet every parent buys there kids 300 dollar sticks and 1200 dollar skates and if you don't you are frowned upon.

Every spring they play spring hockey for another 5 grand. Every summer its 4 on 4 and Summer camps for another 4 grand.

His AAA years cost us close to 40 grand I would say. Maybe more.

This year he is playing high school hockey.

Was it worth it? I don't think so. I think I would have enjoyed it all the same playing a t a lower level.
 

TheTotalPackage

Registered User
Sep 14, 2006
7,303
5,450
Bumping this with another article about hockey becoming elitist in Canada. This time from the National Post:

http://nationalpost.com/sports/hock...rrifyingly-expensive-and-dangerously-elitist/

There are links to earlier sections of the story in the article as well.

I know many people who think there is prestige that comes behind their kid(s) playing higher level hockey. They go around flaunting it, and compare/compete their mansions, nice cars, etc. Really, no one out of your inner circle cares.

Quit thinking your kid(s) is/are going to be the next multi-million dollar NHLer(s) and let them have some natural fun playing the game.
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
I think the idea of different levels of hockey is a good one

Except its all geared now for probably 20 to 50 kids depending on the size of your province. What I mean is AAA/prep school hockey is for developing kids that may have a chance at Junior/NCAA.

For instance AAA hockey in Manitoba has roughly 10 teams per level. Which equates to say 200 kids total per age group. I would say only 20 of those ever move on to the WHL/NCAA per year who play full time at those levels. The rest maybe end playing Junior A/B hockey.

Average cost per year of AAA total is probably 15K. Pre School is probably 30K. If your kids isn't the top player or players on his team you are basically paying to push those kids onto the next level.

I have 1 boy who is 17 now and 1 girl who is much younger. The boy is my step son and he started playing hockey when he was 7 when and his mother got together. He started in House League, then played A2,A1,AA then AAA hockey.

The WHL does these seminars for parents and kids. They tell you that buying the best or at least the most expensive equipment is not nesscesary. The difference between a 60 dollar stick and a 300 dollar stick is 240 dollars. Your 13 year old can't tell the difference and it doesn't make a difference. Yet every parent buys there kids 300 dollar sticks and 1200 dollar skates and if you don't you are frowned upon.

Every spring they play spring hockey for another 5 grand. Every summer its 4 on 4 and Summer camps for another 4 grand.

His AAA years cost us close to 40 grand I would say. Maybe more.

This year he is playing high school hockey.

Was it worth it? I don't think so. I think I would have enjoyed it all the same playing a t a lower level.

Dont know how it is now but back when I was in HS in Winnipeg, it was possible to make it to decent levels of hockey from that league. Friend of mine ended up with a D1 scholarship, and that year of HS had Reaves and I think even Garbutt playing as GR10/11.

Might be harash as I still play goalie in adult hockey but I know when I have a kid, I wont be able to afford it and might push them towards other sports, if they even wind up liking sports at all.
 

SCBlueLiner

Registered User
Dec 27, 2013
327
100
The money in hockey makes me sick. It is so shortsighted for the sport. There are so many young players that get driven out of the sport who may have had the talent but it is never tapped into.

I was having this discussion with my neighbor who is a high school football coach. This year my oldest is moving to a nearby city to play AAA hockey, live with a host family, and go to school. Financially, it isn't going to be that bad for us, relative to what hockey CAN cost, about $6,000, but my son still has to move away from home to pursue his hockey goals, which bothers me. We were contrasting the hockey model to the traditional sports of football, basketball, and baseball in the U.S. The only state close to a more traditional American sport model is in Minnesota where High School hockey is king. Parents there can still spend a lot of money on hockey, but relative to other areas of the U.S. the amount spent is peanuts.

This model the hockey world has built up is not sustainable and it is prohibitive to growth in the game. It is a huge turnoff to non-hockey people, people we target to get their kids involved in the sport. The sports governing bodies need to step in at some point and come up with a different model. A model that reduces costs, increases participation, and provides that a high level of hockey is attainable to those with limited means. The sport is quickly becoming the sport of the rich who can simply price others out of the market by paying for top level instruction at a younger and younger age. Parents with even middle class means cannot keep up with this amount of spending. Also, there is little room for late bloomers in hockey as parents without means give up and aren't going to keep throwing money at a kid who is late developing. The sport is missing the boat on so many players on so many levels.
 

Rocko604

Sports will break your heart.
Apr 29, 2009
8,562
273
Vancouver, BC
Kind of OT, but with the on-going costs of hockey, I continue to be amazed that Rugby Canada hasn't made a major investment into grassroots and high performance rugby in this country. Especially with the recent popularity of Sevens. I think they could get a lot of interest from kids who might not be able to play hockey. Instead, RC's idea of developing players is hanging around CFL training camps hoping to catch someone who just got cut.
 

hockeyguy0022

Registered User
Feb 20, 2016
346
176
IMO,

Since 08/09, the loose credit policies and money printing has done a number on the "middle class" they're quickly becoming the working poor, if they weren't already before.

The wage scale isn't keeping up.

On top of the economic decline of the west, CTE in Ice Hockey and Football has become a much bigger topic.

I don't think I could let a child play football in this day and age, it's just too much head to head contact. At least in hockey, one or two concussion is fine IF YOU LET THEM HEAL PROPERLY. After one or two, it's time to retire. However, there are huge costs involved in Hockey with ice time/tournaments.

The sport that I think will have huge growth in North America, is lacrosse, more specifically box lacrosse.

Much cheaper, practice anywhere, more entertaining then hockey at the professional level (NLL). Sure you still have some concussions, but no contact sport is without risk.

It's really the best of all worlds, very fast, hard hitting, not that expensive to play etc.
 

USAUSA1

Registered User
Dec 1, 2016
442
44
Sports don't have to be expensive but everybody want their money . People are squeezing from every direction. I don't remember paying for anything but shoes when I was a kid. Everything else was provided by the school or recreation center. I never played the serious travel ball/aau but that's why they have sponsors.
 

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
First off, thanks BC for the OP and the info within. An interesting observation is that I noticed is that the two biggest bumps (participation wise) in the last 15 years came after the 2002 and 2010 Olympics (~13k, 43k).

a) the post was from 2013

b) the number of NHL teams is closer to even

c) it was what I could find easily


If you'd like to go find info from the mid-90s, be my guest. It doesn't change what has happened in the past 20ish years.

I was going to comment on the same thing and then saw the post date.

Having looked at this for something else regarding Russian's in the NHL, last year there were (with a place of birth in Russia) 38 Russians who played 1+ games in the NHL, and 4 others (that I saw/found) who were playing in the AHL and didn't see the NHL.

For reference here is the difference between the late 90s (I believe the peak was somewhere 93 to ~2000) and last year:

Country|2012-2013|1998-99|Difference
Canada|484|551|-67
USA|220|146|+74
Sweden|63|41|+21
Czech Republic|44|51|-7
Russia|29|58|-29
Finland|30|17|+13
Slovakia|12|13|-1

I don't see evidence here of a global talent pool that is increasing in time in quality and quantity.


I see here that Canadians and Russians are being replaced by Swedes and primarily by Americans.

Based on tarheels comparison I know these are mostly depth players that are the difference between now and the last generation of American players.

A) Do you not think that the players who are playing 3rd/4th line minutes today in the NHL are better than those that played a similar role ~20 years ago?

B) If A) is yes, wouldn't that suggest that the global talent pool is increasing?
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Not Really

First off, thanks BC for the OP and the info within. An interesting observation is that I noticed is that the two biggest bumps (participation wise) in the last 15 years came after the 2002 and 2010 Olympics (~13k, 43k).



I was going to comment on the same thing and then saw the post date.

Having looked at this for something else regarding Russian's in the NHL, last year there were (with a place of birth in Russia) 38 Russians who played 1+ games in the NHL, and 4 others (that I saw/found) who were playing in the AHL and didn't see the NHL.



A) Do you not think that the players who are playing 3rd/4th line minutes today in the NHL are better than those that played a similar role ~20 years ago?

B) If A) is yes, wouldn't that suggest that the global talent pool is increasing?

Not really. Role has changed from size to skill. Not the same role.

Depth defencemen are picked for handedness, speed and skill over size. Depth forwards for speed, positional diversity and skill over size.
 

tony d

Registered User
Jun 23, 2007
76,590
4,550
Behind A Tree
Yeah, hockey's expensive. I know a family who has 2 sons in hockey, every weekend in the winter they're gone somewhere. That means they have to pay for not just hockey registration and equipment but hotels, gas and food. You'd need to be a very well off family to play hockey these days.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
Yeah, hockey's expensive. I know a family who has 2 sons in hockey, every weekend in the winter they're gone somewhere. That means they have to pay for not just hockey registration and equipment but hotels, gas and food. You'd need to be a very well off family to play hockey these days.

I understand that this thread is in the BoH section, so I'm a bit hesitant with this posting, since it deals more with social fabric.

To me, youth sport has the potential to be a powerful social leveler. On the field of play, one's socio-economic status is irrelevant. Traditionally, the children of physicians played with and against the children of restaurant servers, and every strata of society could be found on the court, the pitch, or the ice. That was my own experience and I'm not alone in this. For what it is worth, I'd like to believe that I benefitted as a human being by having teammates and opponents who were judged on their quality of character rather than the financial means of their parents. That's possibly the most enduring gift the game provided

Youth hockey today does not simply deny opportunities to economically disadvantaged youth. No, it also robs economically advantaged youth of the opportunity to interact in a competitive athletic environment with children who are different from them. Youth sport at its best doesn't even acknowledge social or economic class, and by doing so it helps create better people.

That's largely gone from the youth hockey landscape, and everyone is worse off, including members of wealthier classes. If we believe that youth hockey serves a purpose other than creating a pool of future professional players, and that there is (potentially) great long term societal value in the sport as a social leveler, individuals with foresight and a clear vision of what really matters must become involved at the leadership level.
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
I understand that this thread is in the BoH section, so I'm a bit hesitant with this posting, since it deals more with social fabric.

To me, youth sport has the potential to be a powerful social leveler. On the field of play, one's socio-economic status is irrelevant. Traditionally, the children of physicians played with and against the children of restaurant servers, and every strata of society could be found on the court, the pitch, or the ice. That was my own experience and I'm not alone in this. For what it is worth, I'd like to believe that I benefitted as a human being by having teammates and opponents who were judged on their quality of character rather than the financial means of their parents. That's possibly the most enduring gift the game provided

Youth hockey today does not simply deny opportunities to economically disadvantaged youth. No, it also robs economically advantaged youth of the opportunity to interact in a competitive athletic environment with children who are different from them. Youth sport at its best doesn't even acknowledge social or economic class, and by doing so it helps create better people.

That's largely gone from the youth hockey landscape, and everyone is worse off, including members of wealthier classes. If we believe that youth hockey serves a purpose other than creating a pool of future professional players, and that there is (potentially) great long term societal value in the sport as a social leveler, individuals with foresight and a clear vision of what really matters must become involved at the leadership level.

I actually found myself nodding a lot to your post. In a way, hockey's youth participation and social class I feel represents who watches it, rich white guys. Im not saying this is either a bad or good thing.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Depends

I understand that this thread is in the BoH section, so I'm a bit hesitant with this posting, since it deals more with social fabric.

To me, youth sport has the potential to be a powerful social leveler. On the field of play, one's socio-economic status is irrelevant. Traditionally, the children of physicians played with and against the children of restaurant servers, and every strata of society could be found on the court, the pitch, or the ice. That was my own experience and I'm not alone in this. For what it is worth, I'd like to believe that I benefitted as a human being by having teammates and opponents who were judged on their quality of character rather than the financial means of their parents. That's possibly the most enduring gift the game provided

Youth hockey today does not simply deny opportunities to economically disadvantaged youth. No, it also robs economically advantaged youth of the opportunity to interact in a competitive athletic environment with children who are different from them. Youth sport at its best doesn't even acknowledge social or economic class, and by doing so it helps create better people.

That's largely gone from the youth hockey landscape, and everyone is worse off, including members of wealthier classes. If we believe that youth hockey serves a purpose other than creating a pool of future professional players, and that there is (potentially) great long term societal value in the sport as a social leveler, individuals with foresight and a clear vision of what really matters must become involved at the leadership level.

Very true but depends on where you grew-up.

Montreal almost sixty years ago, hockey was very local for house league and travel teams. Basically working class districts, middle class and upper class organizations were separated into zones or by small on island municipalities. Travel teams were a bit of a misnommer since the difference between house league and travel was an extra 10-15 minute walk. Still true today, except the difference may be ten extra minutes on the subway.

Then and now the only interaction or mingling was beyond the district playoffs - Island or City Championships as well as the numerous festivals, tournaments, exchanges where off ice it was/is possible to mingle between games, especially if playing twice a day.

Made many friends and contacts that I have to this day.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I understand that this thread is in the BoH section, so I'm a bit hesitant with this posting, since it deals more with social fabric.

To me, youth sport has the potential to be a powerful social leveler. On the field of play, one's socio-economic status is irrelevant. Traditionally, the children of physicians played with and against the children of restaurant servers, and every strata of society could be found on the court, the pitch, or the ice.....

Oh ya, speaking to the larger issues as you have in your post entirely kosher here on BOH as it addresses economic issues, barriers. Sociological aspects fair game..... And yes, completely agree with your observations, opinions.

Very true but depends on where you grew-up.

Montreal almost sixty years ago, hockey was very local for house league and travel teams. Basically working class districts, middle class and upper class organizations were separated into zones or by small on island municipalities. Travel teams were a bit of a misnommer since the difference between house league and travel was an extra 10-15 minute walk. Still true today, except the difference may be ten extra minutes on the subway.

Then and now the only interaction or mingling was beyond the district playoffs - Island or City Championships as well as the numerous festivals, tournaments, exchanges where off ice it was/is possible to mingle between games, especially if playing twice a day.

Made many friends and contacts that I have to this day.

Toronto 50-60yrs ago you had just as was the case with Montreal a fairly significant difference between Urban & Suburban organized hockey & sports be it school or organized, amateur organizations as the populations migrated to the suburbs post war. This was particularly stark in Toronto with the huge building booms & suburban sprawl that occurred in Toronto with the then independent municipalities of Etobicoke, North York, Don Mills & Scarborough. The inner city of Toronto, Cabbagetown, Parkdale etc all but abandoned by the middle & upper classes with pockets remaining in primarily North Toronto, Leaside, the Danforth & the Beaches areas.

There was a mixture of blue collar & white collar households in any given suburban area, the odd pockets of upper class households like Etobicokes Baby Point Road area, York Mills in North York.... In Toronto proper, Lawrence Park, Rosedale & to some degree Leaside. Scarborough & North York had their own "Rep Leagues" which were the equivalent of Single A amateur, those teams all being fed by a myriad of organizations with House League's of their own, lots of players never opting to play an equivalent level or higher in the THL/MTHL which is now called the GTHL. The largest minor hockey league on the planet then as now.

So for those who got into the game playing House League for lets say Downsview & who then played for their NYHL Rep Team's, the Downsview Beavers they were never really exposed to a wider range of kids from other areas, other socio-economic stratospheres though within their own immediate area, you did have a fairly broad spectrum of lower to middle classes, wide range of ethnicity as well what with the influx of new Canadians, post war immigration.

Organized sports & certainly hockey the leveling the field, ice as Badger notes above. Hockey freely available with the municipalities putting up shinny rinks from Scarborough throughout North York & Etobicoke, dozens upon dozens of organizations with House League's, Scarborough Hockey League & North York Hockey League Rep Teams and then beyond that, the GTHL itself with teams from everywhere & many of those also with their own House Leagues & Rep Teams playing in the THL at the B, A & AA levels in every age category.

Rather than cost, the main obstacle for many families was commitment in time if their kids were playing hockey. Particularly so if they were playing in the THL with teams from Mississauga to Pickering, North York to Parkdale. Registration Fee's & equipment, those costs were actually pretty insignificant, but time, that was not insignificant. Public transit for kids really wasnt an option. As a result for many, "Ride-shares" beyond common. With suburban sprawl as well, an explosion of first artificial outdoor rinks then many of those covered, the building of indoor rinks all over the city post war into the 60's, Montreal lagging behind Toronto a bit in that regard, Montreal still then very much more "urban oriented" and "older" of course. Infrastructure's in place, greater diversity economically within the city during that period. Toronto & its suburbs, much more cloistered. Islands unto themselves.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Walk

^^^ Montreal, an Island, defined by plateaus and natural barriers was fortunate since the hockey organizations pre 1970 were structured according to the old, parish, school, community center format.

This made it possible for youngsters to walk to most of their practices, games, etc. often combining school and recreation since the three foundations tended to be in very close proximity.

Critical to integrating the various ethnic groups and immigrants since a car was a not family asset.

Also since the three foundations were based on multiple services and purposes as opposed to one sport - hockey, the integration was wore inclusive and widespread.
 

Slats432

Registered User
Jun 2, 2002
14,757
2,778
hockeypedia.com
Yeah, hockey's expensive. I know a family who has 2 sons in hockey, every weekend in the winter they're gone somewhere. That means they have to pay for not just hockey registration and equipment but hotels, gas and food. You'd need to be a very well off family to play hockey these days.

Alberta Minor Midget AAA last season costs.

Registration: $3,750.00
Cash calls: $750.00
Hockey academy: $2800.00
New equipment:$800.00
New skates including balancing: $1200.00
Off season training: $2500.00
6 x hockey sticks: $1800.00
Travel (Out of town, provincials, WHL training camp):$7000.00 (Varies but we had a long journey for WHL Camp. If no provincials or WHL camp $5500.00 less)

The miscellaneous of driving to the rink, coffees, laces, tape, skate sharpenings are not included in the above.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,552
2,174
There is an excellent scholarly article written by Julie Stevens that looks closely at the dynamics during the 1994 merger of the CAHA, Hockey Canada and what is now known as the Canadian Hockey League (major junior). My apologies for not providing a link (technological linitations) but google should provide anyone interested with a route to the article.

Stevens was given access to much historical documentation (meeting agendas, minutes, etc.) and personally interviewed many of the people who were involved with the creation of "Hockey Canada" as we know it today.

The major philosophical hurdle the parties had to overcome was that the CAHA saw itself very much as a steward of the game in an on-ice and community sense, while the Hockey Canada folks saw themselves as more corporate, focused on sponsorships/business partnerships and bottom line financial issues.

Stevens' article is ostensibly about various change management theories, but what grabbed me was the battle between those who saw governing the game as nearly a sacred trust and those who saw unrealized revenue generation possibilities. Once the new organization got up and running, these philosophical differences became part of the day-to-day life daily life of executives who came from both sides. I recommend the article if you are interested in this sort of thing.

Today, I think we know who won that philosophical war. Every year I still read the minutes and reports from Hockey Canada's AGM and various Congresses, and every year I see financial success cast as success for the game itself. Got a problem with declining youth registration? We've got a corporate partner who will outfit a 6 year old (one time only) for $200. No effort or desire to see that the game is not a corporation to most Canadians and that successful stewardship isn't just about broadcast rights dollars for an annual Christmas junior tournament.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
Alberta Minor Midget AAA last season costs.

Registration: $3,750.00
Cash calls: $750.00
Hockey academy: $2800.00
New equipment:$800.00
New skates including balancing: $1200.00
Off season training: $2500.00
6 x hockey sticks: $1800.00
Travel (Out of town, provincials, WHL training camp):$7000.00 (Varies but we had a long journey for WHL Camp. If no provincials or WHL camp $5500.00 less)

The miscellaneous of driving to the rink, coffees, laces, tape, skate sharpenings are not included in the above.

It's just breathtaking. That's almost 20 grand a year for a kid to play a sport. There are a large number of people (the majority, I'd imagine?) who wouldn't be able to cover basic living expenses after taking that big a chunk out of their income.

The major philosophical hurdle the parties had to overcome was that the CAHA saw itself very much as a steward of the game in an on-ice and community sense, while the Hockey Canada folks saw themselves as more corporate, focused on sponsorships/business partnerships and bottom line financial issues.

Stevens' article is ostensibly about various change management theories, but what grabbed me was the battle between those who saw governing the game as nearly a sacred trust and those who saw unrealized revenue generation possibilities. Once the new organization got up and running, these philosophical differences became part of the day-to-day life daily life of executives who came from both sides. I recommend the article if you are interested in this sort of thing.

Thanks for sharing this... it dovetails with something I've noticed while doing background research on the never ending "era comparisons" threads elsewhere on HF.

One of the big questions that always comes up in those threads is, in short, "how many people played hockey at a given time in history?". And often, one of the talking points is "Look at how much hockey registration has gone up over the years!".

But when I drill down into the data that backs up those claims, I don't see evidence of actual growth in Canadian hockey participation after around 1980. Yes, the registration figures climb and climb. But there aren't any new rinks, new leagues, booming markets in equipment... the things you'd expect to see if the number of actual players were skyrocketing steeply. If anything, all those other indicators appear to have stagnated during the 80s and 90s, and then begun a gradual decline which is now becoming an alarming decline.

What I realized, and this appears to be validated by the article you referenced, is that the "increase in hockey participation" was actually an increase in the bureaucratic machine which ensures that players are registered and covered by insurance. Improvements in bureaucratic efficiency allowed HC to capture the participation of all players... because instead of playing casual pick-up at the pond or neighborhood rink, almost all players were now officially registered in organized HC-affiliated leagues. What might have been 30 unregistered players in a pickup game became 20 registered players in a league. Thus "hockey registration is booming!" became an accepted narrative to prove that the game was growing.

This isn't only the case in Canada, but also south of the border where USA Hockey has claimed massive gains in states like Minnesota and Maine, despite people on the ground saying no such thing has taken place.

The insidious part of all this is that from the standpoint of Hockey Canada/USA and the NHL, there is ONLY an incentive to claim victory. Nobody in the organization benefits from pointing out that they are growing registration income while the actual participation rate plummets. That sort of admission gets people fired... so what they tell the public is "registration is higher than ever!" and nothing gets done to check the decline of the sport.

I really do believe this has reached a crisis. A crisis which is being passively covered up by hockey authorities who have no incentive to address it.

Anecdotally, just today my sons' roller hockey league announced a delay in the start of their fall season because they can't find enough players to get started. Last year they had 4 teams, this year they are struggling to find enough players for 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerBruce

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Alberta Minor Midget AAA last season costs.

Registration: $3,750.00
Cash calls: $750.00
Hockey academy: $2800.00
New equipment:$800.00
New skates including balancing: $1200.00
Off season training: $2500.00
6 x hockey sticks: $1800.00
Travel (Out of town, provincials, WHL training camp):$7000.00 (Varies but we had a long journey for WHL Camp. If no provincials or WHL camp $5500.00 less)

The miscellaneous of driving to the rink, coffees, laces, tape, skate sharpenings are not included in the above.

Good God. Even excluding the WHL camp @ $5500 your dropping north of 14 grand (and thats being conservative I'm sure) in a so called Hockey Heartland like Alberta. That much & more, double it in some cases, seemingly the new normal be it Vancouver, Edmonton or Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or wherever. And if you want a real shock, what people are paying in even places like Minnesota let alone Southern California or wherever... absolutely obscene.... and ya, seriously tarheel. Thats just totally out of reach for all but the upper middle classes and as weve seen with American Draft Picks in particular of the past 20yrs, almost all of them from precisely that kind of background. Canadians as well for pretty much the last decade +. So much for hockey being "The Peoples Game".
 
Last edited:

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,157
4,253
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Good God. Even excluding the WHL camp @ $5500 your dropping north of 14 grand (and thats being conservative I'm sure) in a so called Hockey Heartland like Alberta. That much & more, double it in some cases, seemingly the new normal be it Vancouver, Edmonton or Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal or wherever. And if you want a real shock, what people are paying in even places like Minnesota let alone Southern California or wherever... absolutely obscene.... and ya, seriously tarheel. Thats just totally out of reach for all but the upper middle classes and as weve seen with American Draft Picks in particular of the past 20yrs, almost all of them from precisely that kind of background. Canadians as well for pretty much the last decade +. So much for hockey being "The Peoples Game".

But that's a choice Slats is making.

The registration fee and cash calls are the only 100% required expenses. Your kids don't need to go to hockey academies or expensive off-season training. You don't need to buy $300 sticks. I've never even heard of $1200 skates. $800 for equipment sounds about right if new, but there's always used equipment for less.

Slats' kid is trying to make to the WHL, and probably has NHL dreams. That's why all the extra costs - do give his kid whatever edge he can. But they're not required in order to play the game.

Now my perspective is different because I have one son who is just going into Novice hockey, and a second who is just starting Timbits hockey. Maybe when they get older I'll get sucked in to buying all the fancy equipment and power skating lessons. But right now while I'm happy to pay the registration fees, everything else is being done on the cheap.

I'm not saying hockey is cheap. It is too expensive for too many families. But don't look at the top end, NHL-dreaming kids as being typical of all kids.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,982
137,355
Bojangles Parking Lot
But that's a choice Slats is making.

The registration fee and cash calls are the only 100% required expenses.

That's still $4500, an absurd amount of money to pay for recreation. That's golf, polo type money. What are the youth talent streams looking like in those sports?

Your kids don't need to go to hockey academies or expensive off-season training. You don't need to buy $300 sticks. I've never even heard of $1200 skates. $800 for equipment sounds about right if new, but there's always used equipment for less.

Basically, rich kids can compete and poor kids can watch from the bench? Once you get to the the travel level, the poor kids can go home?
 

SCBlueLiner

Registered User
Dec 27, 2013
327
100
To participate and play the sport of hockey at the youth level it can be relatively inexpensive, if there is no ambition to play at the "next level", whatever that next level may be. In that way, the rich can simply outspend the lesser off and make the game their own private party.

Where this does not happen is in Minnesota. I know somebody mentioned this state earlier but they are wrong. In Minnesota hockey is still tied to the schools and High School hockey is king. The cost to play for the school is as little as a $300-$500 registration fee, depending on your school district. The High School hockey model keeps costs down and allows your average middle class kid the opportunity to compete at a high level of hockey. Do I even need to get into the overwhelming number of Minnesotans who signed D1 hockey scholarships just this last year? The High School model works. That's where USA Hockey should focus their efforts rather than the Tier 1 & Tier 2 Club models.

Now, are there examples in Minnesota where you can spend an unlimited amount of money on the latest equipment and specialized training and off-ice workouts and on down the line? Yes there are. The opportunity is there, however, to play hockey "on the cheap" and to excel and be recognized and move up to the "next level" if you simply have the talent. The community backing is still there to help these kids to make it too.

For perspective, we don't live in Minnesota, rather, in a border state, and have spent years playing teams from over there and have spent a lot of time in Minnesota hockey rinks. I have seen firsthand how the system is set up. My oldest plays Tier 1 Midgets now. I can only wish we lived in Minnesota and had the option of good high school hockey for my kids.

I kinda hear that common theme coming from people in Canada, that participation was higher and the sport was cheaper and more attainable when it was school based. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe it is as simple as taking the sport away from the clubs and the "non-profits" and give it back to the schools.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->