View Single Post
02-23-2013, 03:51 PM
Mr Kanadensisk
Registered User
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,968
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by EbencoyE View Post
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 created their own best on best tournament it could certainly become hugely successfull. It might take a bit of time but other sports have done it, and hockey could too.

The reason why economic beneifts are so important is because the periodic exposure to a sport is not enough to stimulate any significant amount of growth (if growth is important to you). The Superbowl is the perfect example of this.

However if the profits of a best on best tournament stay within hockey then a lot of the money can be used for grassroots programs. Again there is only so much the IIHF can do. The most important thing for growing the sport is in giving people the day in and day out exposure that a league provides, but investment in minor hockey programs certainly doesn't hurt.

Mr Kanadensisk is offline