SI.COM article: NHL needs to reexamine its alliance with Olympics

[Icicle]

There's very few stores in Finland where you can buy NHL paraphanelia.
I've seen Ranger socks at H&M once or twice..
Flyers boxers there too. Not recently though..

Authentic sweaters, basically hockey stores only.

But hey, you can buy a Team USA sweater at Prisma (like a local wallmart). Though thats not an official but a "fan" sweater.

When Toronto came over for that NHL challenge games some years ago, they played in front of full arenas, created an oppurtunity to sell Toronto Maple Leafs jerseys, socks, caps, scarfs..
Didn't go to the game so I can't say if they sold any or not. But they should have..

I reckon they should chip in with x amount of dollars, start up a NHL.com store in Helsinki, St Petersburg, Stockholm etc etc and sell socks, caps, boxers, sweaters etc etc try it for a year to see if the shops make a profit or not.

You can't even find stuff like that in many areas of the US.

 

[Icicle]

Personally, I think they ought to just take hockey out of the Olympics. There are 6-7 countries that are competitive on the men's side, and 2-3 on the women's. Not enough.

Every Winter Olympic sport is like this

 

[Jazz]

Personally, I think they ought to just take hockey out of the Olympics. There are 6-7 countries that are competitive on the men's side, and 2-3 on the women's. Not enough.

FIFA's World Cup (soccer) has only ever had 7 winners....

 

[Phanuthier*]

"Growing fast" - are you talking about the rate of growth, or the growth itself? And why are you talking about profit when it should be revenues.

During the entire CBA mess, it was reported that NHL revenues have gone from $700 million to $2.2 billion over the past number of years, ie it tripled

To be honest, we don't know the breakdown between domestic revenues and overseas revenue either...

Where was that revenue coming from? Ticket sales? Most probably, as well as expansion teams revenue (4 new teams) because it sure wasn't coming from TV contracts. Going into the lockout, ESPN's NHL TV network was cut from $120 million to $60 million. NBC refused to pay anything up front. It'll be interesting to see for the season back, but going into the lockout, the NHL was losing - not gaining - interest from TV stations. It's more beneficial to talk about profit/losses rather then revenue, because pre-1994 had 26 or 24 teams. Right now, there are 30.

As for international interest, consider this... the 2004 World Cup, Team USA vs Team Russia - one of the "premier events" of the World Cup, drew 318,000 viewers. That same night, the World Series of Poker drew almost 2 million.

Tell me again how its worth the NHL and its owners huge financial investment to get their name overseas?

 

[Jazz]

....As for international interest, consider this... the 2004 World Cup, Team USA vs Team Russia - one of the "premier events" of the World Cup, drew 318,000 viewers. That same night, the World Series of Poker drew almost 2 million.

Tell me again how its worth the NHL and its owners huge financial investment to get their name overseas?

What does interest in the US for a World Cup game have to do with NHL revenues from outside North America (which is a point of this thread)?

It was actually 1.2 million on ESPN for the poker (and 380,000 on ESPN2 for the Russia-USA QF game) - I know b/c I have quoted those numbers from that specific date numerous times in bashing ESPN's treatment of hockey...but that's besides the point here...

 

[Winger98]

This isn't simply about a weak effort against the Latvians. This is about how another of NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's marketing experiments is failing, how another winter seems lost, how not even the Olympic Games can excite anyone.

I think it's a little unfair to blame Bettman for olympic hockey not being overly exciting to people this year. For whatever reason, the Olympics in general isn't generating much excitement. From figure skating to bobsledding to downhill skiing, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in the Olympics as a whole.

Personally, I'd like to see the schedule permanently shortened and not just in Olympic years. Maybe not ten games, but maybe 6. And shorten the pre-season as well/start the season earlier. They might lose some revenue (though I think it would be minimal) but it could result in healthier players and more games played with higher energy levels.

 

[Phanuthier*]

What does interest in the US for a World Cup game have to do with NHL revenues from outside North America (which is a point of this thread)?

It was actually 1.2 million on ESPN for the poker (and 380,000 on ESPN2 for the Russia-USA QF game) - I know b/c I have quoted those numbers from that specific date numerous times in bashing ESPN's treatment of hockey...but that's besides the point here...

I know its besides the point, but you may have quoted the wrong numbers:
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/WorldCup/2004/09/14/628991.html
Nearly two million households watched the poker. Total number of households tuning into the hockey: 318,000.

What does interest for the World Cup have to do with international revenue? Well... this thread is about Olympics, and how much interest it would garner the NHL now and later. Taking a star event such as the World Cup, and one of its main features - USA vs Russia - if they could garner only 318,000 viewers, how much interest do you think there is overseas for hockey?

 

[Jazz]

....What does interest for the World Cup have to do with international revenue? Well... this thread is about Olympics, and how much interest it would garner the NHL now and later. Taking a star event such as the World Cup, and one of its main features - USA vs Russia - if they could garner only 318,000 viewers, how much interest do you think there is overseas for hockey?

Are you asking about how many American viewers, or world-wide viewers?

If it is about American viewers, then again, it has nothing to do with international revenue for the NHL.

If it is world-wide viewership, then it will be high (how high will of course depend on the countries involved for that game). IIRC, about half of Finland watched the World Cup Final, many millions of Czechs and Russians watched the '98 Nagano final

The more hockey fans we make overseas, the bigger the revenue from these fans, and the potential pool for NHL players from some of these countries.

I'd be curious to know if there was a surge in youth participation in the Czech Republic after 1998...

 

[puck57]

The olympics is probably one of the best way of advertising a sport around the world. There are millions and millions of people watching, and if you don't think that something like that is good for a sport, I really don't know what to say. Like in sweden, there are far from everybody that have a chanse of seeing nhl regurally, and if you ask young hockey players how they got interested in hockey, they often say, watching the olympics in 94, the woldchampionships, and so on. Why not show the world how exiting hockey can be, take a longer brake, make sure the best players can be there. I really think hockey will benefit from it.

The other option might be to have some sort of "national team" or core of players that play together several times a year- some have alluded to that. I agree the Olympics is the best showcase for hockey and I think a longer break and shorter season are necessary to make the best play possible. I also agree you can't straddle the fence and sort of half-heartly support the Olympics- either all the way or get out completely. No way hockey at the summer Olympics- it's a winter sport!

http://images.cyberpresse.ca/apps/p...L&ArtNo=60215004&Ref=AR&Profile=5603&MaxW=700

 

[discostu]

I think Egil hit the nail on the head. The U.S. is struggling in recent years in international play, which is why "interest" has been down. Generally speaking, it's hard for any Olympic sport to get attention in the U.S., unless there are gold medals to be had. Right now, the American's chances are slim, so, the focus will go onto the other sports.

I really don't see any downside to the NHL. It's a couple of weeks gone from the schedule. It's not a big loss.

On the flip side, fans get to see competitive hockey. They see their favourite players playing with passion for their country. Of the 4 major NA sports, hockey is the one that has the most balance on the world level. There are various forms of international competition, and the field even enough that a variety of teams can realistically emerge as the champion. As a fan, it's a great opportunity to watch great hockey.

From a business side, owners can't be short-sighted to only look at what the immediate returns are going to be. It's exposure for the sport, plain and simple. If the results don't happen to lead to big dividends domestically, that's fine. In 4 years, the American team may be stronger, and interest will be higher (although, if Team USA does bounce back, and makes a run in the playoff round, they could become a great cinderella story).

No one knows for sure what the future of the sport holds. There's much talk of the rise of Asia, but, others have pointed out, there doesn't appear to be much interest in hockey over there. True, but, as it is, they are already becoming increased medal threats at the Winter games, when 20 years ago, they weren't even on the radar. Obviously, the opportunity to increase the global presence of the sport is there, and the powers that be behind the NHL would be fools to not pursue it.

 

[Jazz]

I think Egil hit the nail on the head. The U.S. is struggling in recent years in international play, which is why "interest" has been down. Generally speaking, it's hard for any Olympic sport to get attention in the U.S., unless there are gold medals to be had. Right now, the American's chances are slim, so, the focus will go onto the other sports.

I really don't see any downside to the NHL. It's a couple of weeks gone from the schedule. It's not a big loss.

On the flip side, fans get to see competitive hockey. They see their favourite players playing with passion for their country. Of the 4 major NA sports, hockey is the one that has the most balance on the world level. There are various forms of international competition, and the field even enough that a variety of teams can realistically emerge as the champion. As a fan, it's a great opportunity to watch great hockey.

From a business side, owners can't be short-sighted to only look at what the immediate returns are going to be. It's exposure for the sport, plain and simple. If the results don't happen to lead to big dividends domestically, that's fine. In 4 years, the American team may be stronger, and interest will be higher (although, if Team USA does bounce back, and makes a run in the playoff round, they could become a great cinderella story).

No one knows for sure what the future of the sport holds. There's much talk of the rise of Asia, but, others have pointed out, there doesn't appear to be much interest in hockey over there. True, but, as it is, they are already becoming increased medal threats at the Winter games, when 20 years ago, they weren't even on the radar. Obviously, the opportunity to increase the global presence of the sport is there, and the powers that be behind the NHL would be fools to not pursue it.

With the talented young crop of Americans about to emerge, their 2010 team should be a medal contender, so it might bode well for us international hockey fans that they will make the decision to continue Olympic participation after that tournament...

As for the owners, I'm afraid they will be short-sighted...

 

[artilector]

To whine about a two-week break ONCE every FOUR years is beyond pathetic... The economic argument is ludicrous.. the owners had better make a wiser use of their time than to seriously consider these peanuts, the difference in attendance over 5-6 games amortized over four years. C'mon, doesn't that look completely and utterly absurd? Lets say attendance would have been 2000 better in these 5-6 games if there was no break. Lets say $50 a ticket. So you're talking about $500,000 every four years, $125,000 a year is the penalty for the Olympics. This is what the owners are making a fuss about??? Are they clinically insane?!!!

The other stuff one hears is that owners/fans are afraid to lose players to injury. First of all, its overblown: a couple of players every four years get injured, and all of a sudden its a tremendous risk. Please! Second, you want to turn a player into club property? Well, put it into the f-ing contract! Offer the player less money if he insists on playing for his country...and then watch him sign with another club that is not as dumb - just don't complain about it!

Last thing is also the most important, and some people here rightly mentioned it first. The attraction of a sport is defined by great performances; the greatest performances come when pressure is greatest - on the world stage, carrying the hopes of an entire nation. This is why hockey needs these games, it needs Russia vs. Canada in the finals of the Olympics... and all those who say that the Stanley Cup is more important than the Olympics are precisely the reason why hockey is not gaining popularity as fast as it should.. Again, if the owners and fans do not love the game of hockey enough to sacrifice a miniscule amount to promote it, its just despicable..

 

[Phanuthier*]

If it is world-wide viewership, then it will be high (how high will of course depend on the countries involved for that game). IIRC, about half of Finland watched the World Cup Final, many millions of Czechs and Russians watched the '98 Nagano final

The more hockey fans we make overseas, the bigger the revenue from these fans, and the potential pool for NHL players from some of these countries.

I'd be curious to know if there was a surge in youth participation in the Czech Republic after 1998...

I would as well.

Of these "millions" how many stuck?

If a tree falls and no one knows, does it make a sound?

 

[Phanuthier*]

To whine about a two-week break ONCE every FOUR years is beyond pathetic... The economic argument is ludicrous.. the owners had better make a wiser use of their time than to seriously consider these peanuts, the difference in attendance over 5-6 games amortized over four years. C'mon, doesn't that look completely and utterly absurd? Lets say attendance would have been 2000 better in these 5-6 games if there was no break. Lets say $50 a ticket. So you're talking about $500,000 every four years, $125,000 a year is the penalty for the Olympics. This is what the owners are making a fuss about??? Are they clinically insane?!!!

The other stuff one hears is that owners/fans are afraid to lose players to injury. First of all, its overblown: a couple of players every four years get injured, and all of a sudden its a tremendous risk. Please! Second, you want to turn a player into club property? Well, put it into the f-ing contract! Offer the player less money if he insists on playing for his country...and then watch him sign with another club that is not as dumb - just don't complain about it!

Last thing is also the most important, and some people here rightly mentioned it first. The attraction of a sport is defined by great performances; the greatest performances come when pressure is greatest - on the world stage, carrying the hopes of an entire nation. This is why hockey needs these games, it needs Russia vs. Canada in the finals of the Olympics... and all those who say that the Stanley Cup is more important than the Olympics are precisely the reason why hockey is not gaining popularity as fast as it should.. Again, if the owners and fans do not love the game of hockey enough to sacrifice a miniscule amount to promote it, its just despicable..

Its not miniscule. To contending teams, this is a make or break year. Ask Ottawa if they care if they care if they lose Hasek or Redden or Chara for the season... Ottawa isn't looking to win this season. They haven't won before, and they'll have a tough time keeping their roster next year. They want to win THIS year. This is not miniscule to teams that have a shot at it right now.

You speak of this as its some sort of fantasy. "Legendary game." C'mon, would it be legendary if Canada played Russia this year? Canada vs. USA... again?

If the Olympics were "so big" and "so important" in making the NHL big, why didn't it do it for anyone else? Did it make basketball big? The NFL and NBA doesn't go. Is women's hockey growing? How many curling tounaments have you gotten into because of the Olympics?

 

[Jazz]

I would as well.

Of these "millions" how many stuck?

If a tree falls and no one knows, does it make a sound?

Well, problem is we don't have many Czechs on this forum....I'll ask on mine, but we don't have many Czechs either (I guess they prefer to discuss hockey in their own language.. .)

However, your last sentence leads me to believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that you are vastly underestimating hockey's popularity in some countries...

Here is a breakdown from what I understand, and I'll ask anyone from these countries to give their thoughts..

• In Finland it is the #1 team sport, by far
• In Czech Republic, it is a close #2 behind soccer
• In Slovakia, hockey and soccer are 1 and 1a
• In Sweden, it is #2 (but unfortunately sliding), behind soccer
• In Russia, it is currently 3rd, behind a recent (but perhaps transient) surge with Tennis, and of course, soccer.
• In Latvia, it is also #1, and up there with Switzerland as well...
• In Germany, very popular in the south, and more so in the west (Rhine area) with a surge in youth participation in the past 10 years...

You have only to look at the World Championships every spring, and how most of Europe goes nuts over it...

 

[Phanuthier*]

... and after all of this... how much has that helped the NHL?

I think the long and short of this issue is:
NHL: How can this help me?
Player: Playing in a big tournament, maybe do a commercial or too.
IOC: $$$
Olympic host city: $$$
Each NHL team: How will this affect my city?

Right now, I see the IOC and Oympic host city as the biggest winners. By far. The players... depends how much they really want to be there. Ryan Smyth is a guy who goes all the time. Jarome Iginla, on the other hand, has showed lukewarm interest in anything other then elite compeitions. Depends from player to players, but I'll bet more then a few would rather have a 2 week vacation - including some playing out of a formality, or to avoid backlash ala Kiprusoff - then to grind though another 2 weeks in an already tough schedual. Now, the NHL and each NHL team... I've shown figures to support that dispite playing in 2 Olympics and 2 World Cup (we'll use 1 for now, since we have no idea how much 2004 World Cup has affected NHL revenue until after the season) you'd think the NHL would be walking on rose pedels? Instead, more then half the teams are fighting for their lives to stay economically viable. From what I have seen so far, these elite tournaments have really have had negligable effect on the NHL. I think if this one doesn't do boost the NHL to any recognizable level, this is the last time we'll see the NHL in the Olympics.

 

[khy206]

Its not miniscule. To contending teams, this is a make or break year. Ask Ottawa if they care if they care if they lose Hasek or Redden or Chara for the season... Ottawa isn't looking to win this season. They haven't won before, and they'll have a tough time keeping their roster next year. They want to win THIS year. This is not miniscule to teams that have a shot at it right now.
You speak of this as its some sort of fantasy. "Legendary game." C'mon, would it be legendary if Canada played Russia this year? Canada vs. USA... again?

If the Olympics were "so big" and "so important" in making the NHL big, why didn't it do it for anyone else? Did it make basketball big? The NFL and NBA doesn't go. Is women's hockey growing? How many curling tounaments have you gotten into because of the Olympics?

Exactly. It is not just once every four year for Ottawa.

 

[Jazz]

...If the Olympics were "so big" and "so important" in making the NHL big, why didn't it do it for anyone else? Did it make basketball big? The NFL and NBA doesn't go. Is women's hockey growing? How many curling tounaments have you gotten into because of the Olympics?

• The NBA - Basketball's popularity worldwide has surged since the Dream Team in 1992, you will notice many more international players in the NBA now compared to before 1992.
• The NFL - American sport only, noone else really plays (or even understands) it
• Women's hockey is growing, albeit slowly (the IIHF was formed in 1908, and it took until the 1947 before a European trained team beat Canada in the Men's), so patience is needed there
• Curling - look at the standings. Canada would have been the runaway winner 10 years ago. We even have countries like New Zealand playing

 

[Phanuthier*]

Ok, I'll concede NBA since I was wrong.

Women's hockey... didn't they say there are only something like 350 registered women playing hockey in Russia? Shouldn't the Olympics make it big?

 

[Metallian*]

It's every two years with the World Cup. For some players, that is too often and that is why they stay away (i.e. Kiprusoff)

Agree'd

it should stay every 4 years, with the "world championship" annually


the world cup ruins the olympics value

 

[Jazz]

Ok, I'll concede NBA since I was wrong.

Women's hockey... didn't they say there are only something like 350 registered women playing hockey in Russia? Shouldn't the Olympics make it big?

Russia was not in the Nagano Olympics, so we have to compare that number from 2002 (ie, before Salt Lake) to...perhaps next year...

 

[Corto]

That's because you can play basketball and baseball in Europe and Asia. How many hockey arena's do you see in Shanghai? How many hockey arena's do you see in Thailand?

In the European market, they already know about hockey. The Swiss already have a top notch league as well as the Scandanavian countries. Hockey isn't something new to them... if it would have got them hooked into putting money up front, they would have done it already.


I think this is the NHL's last kick at the can. There's no use sending them to Vancouver.

I don't think you realize how much it actually does influence sports fans in Europe.

NHL hockey is mostly broadcast on digital satellite, and some countries don't have the interest to show it.

After the Nagano games, the popularity in Croatia and Slovenia increased immensley, and while those two countries are by no means the targets for marketing, an increase in popularity in France, Italy or Spain would do a lot of good for the sport.
The only thing that can do that is Olympic hockey, not the NHL. The Olympic hockey has to get new fans interested in the NHL.

(and no, there are no frozen ponds to play on in Spain, etc... but those countries are relatively rich, and ice rinks for kids are not that much of a problem)

The timing is unfortunate, though. I think they should see about switching hockey to the summer olympics and handball to the winter (guys here who know about handball will understand why).

 

[Phanuthier*]

... and do you have any proof, numbers, stats, articles or anything to show that, in some way, the Olympics have benefited the NHL in some way (financially) ?

Because that is the bottum line to the NHL.

 

[Corto]

... and after all of this... how much has that helped the NHL?

I think the long and short of this issue is:
NHL: How can this help me? -marketing
Player: Playing in a big tournament, maybe do a commercial or too. - you wanna ask the Czech guys from 98 about that? It was a national holiday there when they won.
IOC: $$$
Olympic host city: $$$
Each NHL team: How will this affect my city? - it won't... and certainly not in a bad way

Condtending countries...?

You'll see that, at least a bit more than usual, hockey gets pimped during the Olympics... moreso than say, the NBA in mid-season.
And it's not even comparable in Sweden, Finland, Russia, Czech Rep, etc.

I understand living in Canada doesn't help feeling the Olympic hockey vibe, but what can you do? Go back to not sending NHL pros, not win gold for 50 years, and whine how you don't have pros there? For the 4 years since Nagano to SL City, it was a matter or pride to regain that gold from the Czechs.
Ask the players how they felt about it.
And if Iginla, as you say, feels lukewarm about it, then he shouldn't play. It's that simple.
It's not like Canada would suffer without him, with Staal and co. waiting on the taxi squad.

 

[Corto]

... and do you have any proof, numbers, stats, articles or anything to show that, in some way, the Olympics have benefited the NHL in some way (financially) ?

Because that is the bottum line to the NHL.

I have Anze Kopitar drafed 11th in last year's draft, for example.
Vanek's in Buffalo already.

You'll see more and more players from "obscure" hockey countries emerging, until one they they're not as obscure.