View Single Post
02-23-2013, 12:43 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 1,945
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr Kanadensisk View Post
If that is true who benefits from it? In terms of this discussion I think it is only the IOC. The IIHF and national hockey federations get very little if any of the profits from the Olympics and I highly doubt that any significant number of those people from China play or follow the sport otherwise.
Why does it matter who benefits from it? Whether it's the IOC or the IIHF I don't see why it's important. I don't work for either of those organizations, so that doesn't effect me.

The simple fact of the matter is that being a part of the Olympic programme is much better for the sport than if it were to put all it's apples in the basket of a non-existent "best-on-best" tournament which would more likely than not be a complete flop, or at best successful in hockey countries (even this is doubtful, Americans for example have absolutely no interest in international competition outside of the Olympics in any sport, except maybe the soccer world cup) yet completely irrelevant across the greater reach of the world, unlike the Olympics which automatically give the sport multitudes more credibility and media reach.

If the IIHF had their own best on best tournament every fours years it might start to get some attention in non hockey countries as well, plus that way they would have control of the profits.
How on earth would the availability of players from four more NHL teams make that much of a difference between this hypothetical future tournament and the World Championships? Just because it's every 4 years instead of 1? I'm not sure how having it LESS often, which means LESS exposure, would mean gaining more attention from non-hockey countries.

Originally Posted by cutchemist42
So no we're switching the discussion from international hockey events to comparing the WBC to the whole Olympics? Ok....
You say that as if the hockey tournament (at the Olympics) is somehow separate from the Olympic competition as a whole. The reach and exposure of the Olympics is why the hockey tournament within it is so valuable to the sport. In the majority of IIHF member nations, hockey is supported and even known about in the first place because of it's place among the Olympic sports.

Now I don't really believe the Winter Games could afford to dump hockey altogether because of the lack of winter sports, but I just don't understand why people want to take away the best players (and therefore the highest level of the sport) out of the sport's biggest international stage where the game is most likely to be seen and appreciated the world over and take them to a completely different and completely irrelevant competition.

Last edited by EbencoyE: 02-23-2013 at 12:51 PM.
EbencoyE is offline