It's crazy. An independent women's league is going to get no where, just like the 3-5 others before them haven't gotten anywhere. The best bet for a sustainable women's hockey league is the NHL. Not for a "subsidy" but for investment insurance and cost reduction.
It's NO DIFFERENT than the 3 to 7 attempts at a second football league; or the WNBA. Or ANY start-up.
It's a simple ratio of revenue to costs... there's no way for the players to be full-time athletes for a start-up league. There's no reason for TV to invest in a league that operates at such low cost it could all go belly-up tomorrow. So what you have is a small-time operation with small-time risk that no one will back; and you can't make any inroads before all the best players have to quit and get a real job or be broke and homeless.
The NHL doesn't NEED to "subsidize" a women's league. The NHL doesn't need to GIVE one dime of money to a WNHL and it could aide the WNHL into being a success.
Because the NHL in a unique position of having in place everything a HOCKEY LEAGUE NEEDS already. Just let the WNHL use it. For free. In select NHL -- or AHL markets where the team is owned by the NHL team -- just treat a WNHL team like a college athletics department treats the women's basketball team.
That eliminates 75% of non-player costs for the WNHL. No arena rent, no cost for practice time, no athletic trainer expenses; make the players employees of the NHL club who's practice facility they train/play at and cover them under NHL teams' insurance. The players don't have to buy their own gym membership or pay to sharpen their own skates.
The WNHL would be on the hook for PAYROLL, equipment and travel, and that's it. That alone would allow the WNHL to pay salaries where the players can be HOCKEY PLAYERS as an occupation, and not have to also be something else to afford their lives.
With expenses at the bare minimum and players paid a full-time wage, and the NHL committing to THAT relationship, then investors have very limited risk. Teams won't suddenly find themselves with no where to play or go bankrupt mid-season. So now, it's a decent investment.
The marketing arm of the teams and league can support and aide the league as well. The only "subsidy" necessary would be staffing: NHL team employees serving roles for the WNHL team, like the marketing, equipment, athletic training/medical staffs would need to add an additional person or two to cover 2 teams instead of 1.
The WNBA started with NBA owners owning teams and treating them like college sports treat women's basketball teams. Same organization, just different set of standings. All of you "subsidy freaks" should look at the WNBA.
The WNBA now is looking toward (much needed) expansion. 58% of the league is owned by NON-NBA owners. The five NBA owners don't give up their teams because they don't WANT TO. They've been "Allowed" to divest their WNBA team for a decade or longer. The NBA owners hold on to their WNBA team because they're value-add or because it's worth it to them.
It's a successful, stand alone league now. It's smaller scale, and not without trials and tribulations; but it doesn't NEED an NBA subsidy to exist. It exists on merit now. It's a much smaller enterprise, of course. But that doesn't really matter. Dr. Pepper is never going to be as big as Coke, but Dr. Pepper is doing just fine.
