HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

UPDATE 3/28 - USA Hockey, USWNT reach deal, avoid boycott of World Championship

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-16-2017, 06:59 AM
  #76
varano
Registered User
 
varano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Womens hockey can't support this type of attitude. Its not a revenue producer.
Wonder if they could get scabs instead..

I Also wonder if I should hold out on my ball hockey team until I get paid.. Might work about as well as this.

varano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:01 AM
  #77
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
A reporter on my twitter feed retweeted something from one of the players last night. I responded to both asking how much they are asking them to play per player and can they generate the revenue by playing a full schedule every year. Have not heard a response. Call me a sexist if you want, but the bottom line is the Mens team generates a hell of a lot more revenue. Do the players on the mens team get compensated by USA hockey during Olympic and Non-Olympic years?

The $1000 per month for 6 months while it doesnt seem like a lot, are they also living at the training center and being provided free room and board?

Until I see what the women are asking in terms of actual numbers, can't side with them. They are all free to pursue other careers. NOBODY is forcing them to play on the US National Team. I personally, could not care less if the Womens or Mens team wins Gold at the World Championships or gets relegated all the way down to the bottom division.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:04 AM
  #78
number72
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,145
vCash: 500
1. No disrespect to them but I don't want my tax dollars going to this. It is bad enough tax money subsidizes artists and other trivial programs that offer little economic benefit to their citizens.

2. These women don't have it as half as bad as sledge hockey athletes or inner city/homeless people who can't even afford to play hockey (or sport for that matter). I don't like state paying their salary or subsidizing a free market that does not value their services. However, I'd be open to giving anyone a scholarship for education as that could generates something productive yet their request benefits themselves primarily (which allows them to pursue sport or any other interest).

3. There are a lot of people who have passions (even non-sporting) that consume time for which they are not compensated or subsidized. This is not the primary role of government or state run body to address. Most every competitive olympic sports is not a "smart" career move aside from perhaps the top few that dominate.

4. Sponsorships: There are a number of companies that sponsor NHL, SHL, KHL leagues and players. Go boycott and start a campaign for their "inequality" of women compared to men. The thing is that is their money and they are free to spend it how they wish.
But that is how you can sway the free market but going after government when there are people who are homeless, starving, medical distress - I'm sorry that doesn't add up.

number72 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:08 AM
  #79
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipes View Post
That's also a product of the marketing/money invested into it to a degree.

These women typically work other jobs (at least the ones I know playing in the CWHL have other jobs/careers) while playing at the highest level in their field.

Imagine if they had funding to be full-time hockey players and financial support from USA Hockey and Hockey Canada. Sure, the women will never be as talented, fast, big, or skilled as the Men. At the same time, the Canada v USA women's games are some of the most exciting hockey you can watch. It doesn't even need to be big dollars, my own reflections on this led me to think around $2000/month per player is reasonable. I think at least? Maybe I'm off. I get the revenue generation argument.

I still think more money should be poured into the women's game. Without USA Hockey and Hockey Canada leading the way, we'll never know what potential the women's game could have. At least internationally between the two superpowers, I'd like to see them be compensated more reasonably. I think the product would improve as well, and it's already damn exciting when these two nations get together and battle it out.
There was a time when NFL and MLB players worked jobs during the off-season. Brad Benson who was a starter on the 86 Giants worked in the off-season selling cars, now owns a huge dealership in NJ. Women's hockey is still in it's infancy. It is the equivalent to the NFL of the 30s and 40s. As the NFL's revenues grew as did the player's salaries. As the rep from USA hockey stated, they do not exist to employ players. If these women do not want to play, then they can find players who will or simply not send a team. USA hockey can lose money on new players just as easily as they do with the current players.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:18 AM
  #80
varano
Registered User
 
varano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
There was a time when NFL and MLB players worked jobs during the off-season. Brad Benson who was a starter on the 86 Giants worked in the off-season selling cars, now owns a huge dealership in NJ. Women's hockey is still in it's infancy. It is the equivalent to the NFL of the 30s and 40s. As the NFL's revenues grew as did the player's salaries. As the rep from USA hockey stated, they do not exist to employ players. If these women do not want to play, then they can find players who will or simply not send a team. USA hockey can lose money on new players just as easily as they do with the current players.
Agreed. It has zero to do with skill or gender....Its the industry they're in that simply isn't there yet

varano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:44 AM
  #81
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipes View Post
For Hockey Canada and USA Hockey.

$1000/month for the 6 months leading up the Olympics and barely anything else during other times of the years prior to the Olympics. That's ridiculous, those are organizations generating huge sums of money.
They get most of their funding from the USOC don't they? I'm guessing they don't think they can get any more money out of them so are going after USA hockey as a softer target. Their pay from the USOC is in line with other athletes (see below).

(http://usathletictrust.org/athlete-a...pic-questions/)


The issue is they are amateurs who want to be paid like professionals but can't make a professional living because their chosen sport doesn't generate any real revenue.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 07:51 AM
  #82
NCRanger
Bettman's Enemy
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,272
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
There was a time when NFL and MLB players worked jobs during the off-season. Brad Benson who was a starter on the 86 Giants worked in the off-season selling cars, now owns a huge dealership in NJ. Women's hockey is still in it's infancy. It is the equivalent to the NFL of the 30s and 40s. As the NFL's revenues grew as did the player's salaries. As the rep from USA hockey stated, they do not exist to employ players. If these women do not want to play, then they can find players who will or simply not send a team. USA hockey can lose money on new players just as easily as they do with the current players.
NFL players worked second jobs until the early 80's.

My great-grandfather had an opportunity to sign a contract to be an "original Giant" in 1925. He played semi-pro football in New Jersey after WWI. Giant scout offered him a contract -- $25 a game. He made $10/game plus gate receipts in semi-pro. He turned it down, saying that he made more on his vegetable truck and there was no chance of being permanently injured.

Salaries didn't improve much.

They did have the strike in 1982 and the strike in 1987, which pretty much eliminated the need to work a second job.

The difference? People actually paid to see NFL games and there was a TV contract.

Back on point, the US women's hockey team is not amateur. They are professionals. Unfortunately, people don't really support women's professional sports. You can't force people to attend something they don't want to (unless this becomes North Korea or something.) Title IX only applies if government is funding or subsidizing in some way. It doesn't really apply to private organizations.

NCRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 08:10 AM
  #83
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
They get most of their funding from the USOC don't they? I'm guessing they don't think they can get any more money out of them so are going after USA hockey as a softer target. Their pay from the USOC is in line with other athletes (see below).

(http://usathletictrust.org/athlete-a...pic-questions/)


The issue is they are amateurs who want to be paid like professionals but can't make a professional living because their chosen sport doesn't generate any real revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCRanger View Post
NFL players worked second jobs until the early 80's.

My great-grandfather had an opportunity to sign a contract to be an "original Giant" in 1925. He played semi-pro football in New Jersey after WWI. Giant scout offered him a contract -- $25 a game. He made $10/game plus gate receipts in semi-pro. He turned it down, saying that he made more on his vegetable truck and there was no chance of being permanently injured.

Salaries didn't improve much.

They did have the strike in 1982 and the strike in 1987, which pretty much eliminated the need to work a second job.

The difference? People actually paid to see NFL games and there was a TV contract.

Back on point, the US women's hockey team is not amateur. They are professionals. Unfortunately, people don't really support women's professional sports. You can't force people to attend something they don't want to (unless this becomes North Korea or something.) Title IX only applies if government is funding or subsidizing in some way. It doesn't really apply to private organizations.
Exactly. Look up Nick Mangold's sister. For those who do not know, Nick Mangold was the center of the Jets for about 10 years. His sister was an Oympic heavyweight weight lifter. She was living at the training center, but was released and forced to move out. She wanted to keep competing, so she lived in her coach's basement while continuing to train and made the Olympic team.

The Sutter's also had a 7th brother (I heard about an 8th, but not from a reliable source so I won't get there). Anyway, the 7th was actually the oldest was offered try-outs and declined as he thought he could make more money doing something else.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 08:56 AM
  #84
Inkling
Same Old Hockey
 
Inkling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mork View Post
Any way you look at it, the women aren't getting a fair shake and they deserve better.

The CBC Radio news said Canada will not compete either if the US women sit out. I heard it three times on the hour.
I was listening to CBC Radio this morning and I didn't hear anything about this. It's also not showing up on Twitter.

Inkling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 09:22 AM
  #85
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Burke the Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,615
vCash: 50
So the women team's idea of equality is to be given money they didn't earn, that comes from the positive revenue generation the men's side makes?

Kind of twisted and maybe not quite the feminist trail blazers they think they are.

As others have said, women's hockey is just a low interest amateur sport, like countless others out there that only generate remote interest in an Olympic year. These ladies are acting like they are professionals, and the equivalent of elite male pros but that's just not reality. Male professional hockey worldwide is like a 5$ billion dollar business, women's less than 1% (rounding up) of that.

Burke the Legend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 09:54 AM
  #86
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 7,395
vCash: 500
Pay the women better, market the sport properly, watch as you make more than you spent on marketing and paying them.

If you don't? Fire yourself and let someone who knows how to do their job take yours.

No Team Needed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 10:44 AM
  #87
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
Pay the women better, market the sport properly, watch as you make more than you spent on marketing and paying them.

If you don't? Fire yourself and let someone who knows how to do their job take yours.
You can't force people to watch something. Period.

There is far superior hockey leagues (relative to women's hockey) that are struggling to maintain revenues, because they are all competing against the behemoth that is the NHL.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 10:47 AM
  #88
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peck420 View Post
You can't force people to watch something. Period.

There is far superior hockey leagues (relative to women's hockey) that are struggling to maintain revenues, because they are all competing against the behemoth that is the NHL.
You can't force anyone to watch something, but if you fail at actually making them watch, you either need to try harder or to fire yourself.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 11:24 AM
  #89
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
You can't force anyone to watch something, but if you fail at actually making them watch, you either need to try harder or to fire yourself.
Your post makes no sense. The beginning contradicts the end.

You can't force someone to do something and if they don't do it, it is your fault for not trying hard enough?

If the women want to find a market niche, the best thing they could ever do is stop comparing themselves to the existing, superior product. Every time they do, they reinforce their position as the lesser alternative, among many alternatives. Not an ideal position to market from.

They would be better off finding something that makes their product unique, and market it as a separate or complimentary product.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 11:44 AM
  #90
MeHateHe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 596
vCash: 50
As Dave Zirin writes in The Nation, this isn't just about paying the women, it's about treating the women and the women's game with a little bit of respect.

Quote:
 It’s the fact that when the Olympic uniforms were unveiled before the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, the men’s team was invited to the press conference and the women learned about the presser on television. It’s the fact that these newly minted jerseys listed the Team USA’s historic honors and left off the storied 1998 gold medal won by these very women. It’s the fact that USA Hockey has a sizable budget to develop youth hockey for boys, and offers only crumbs to aid the growth of girls’ play. After a year of trying to negotiate some kind of terms to remedy these issues, the defending World Champions are taking the only step they have left.
https://www.thenation.com/article/he...ing-on-strike/

It strikes me that if you are going to have a program, you want to make sure the program is as good as it possibly can be. I don't think the players are asking for multi-million-dollar salaries, but rather they're looking to be treated as something other than afterthoughts; ignoring their successes and not even letting them know their jerseys were being unveiled is the antithesis of respect. Undercutting them is a poor way of supporting the program.

MeHateHe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 11:54 AM
  #91
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peck420 View Post
Your post makes no sense. The beginning contradicts the end.

You can't force someone to do something and if they don't do it, it is your fault for not trying hard enough?

If the women want to find a market niche, the best thing they could ever do is stop comparing themselves to the existing, superior product. Every time they do, they reinforce their position as the lesser alternative, among many alternatives. Not an ideal position to market from.

They would be better off finding something that makes their product unique, and market it as a separate or complimentary product.
So.. in other words, every marketing veep or officer should never be held accountable if the results are not satisfying, because "can't force anyone to do anything" ?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:00 PM
  #92
HockeyMomx2
Registered User
 
HockeyMomx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Country: United States
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 500
As far as the inequities within USA Hockey, and the money they spend on the boys vs. the girls, this is what I know from experience at the very youngest ages where they are going to National Development Camps - parent out of pocket costs for each are vastly different. I know what I paid for my son to attend the U15 National Camp and I know what I spent for my daughter to attend the girls U16 camp. It wasn't the same, not even close, even taking into account inflation, cost differences, etc. for the different years they attended. Barely affected our wallet for our son to go. Made some sacrifices for the daughter to go a few years later.

HockeyMomx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:03 PM
  #93
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
So.. in other words, every marketing veep or officer should never be held accountable if the results are not satisfying, because "can't force anyone to do anything" ?
They certainly can't be held accountable based on the supposition that they haven't done precisely what they were tasked with.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:10 PM
  #94
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeHateHe View Post
It strikes me that if you are going to have a program, you want to make sure the program is as good as it possibly can be. I don't think the players are asking for multi-million-dollar salaries, but rather they're looking to be treated as something other than afterthoughts; ignoring their successes and not even letting them know their jerseys were being unveiled is the antithesis of respect. Undercutting them is a poor way of supporting the program.
It is tough. Many here think it is as easy as some CEO saying, "treat them both the same." And, if it were that easy, it would already be done.

We are talking about an organization that has to make decisions years in advance, with an eye constantly on the bottom line. A bottom line that has to also take into account the demands of the sponsors that help fund the program.

One thing that is never addressed in these conversations is the role and responsibility...and double talk, of the sponsors themselves.

I have seen that with my very own eyes, for a local soccer sponsorship. The sponsors demanded that a certain amount of face time was provided from the higher exposure male players, during the sponsorship deal negotiations, in private....and followed that up with a public criticizing of the organization for not giving equal face time for the female players. There was no possible win for the organization.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:10 PM
  #95
spintheblackcircle
...so that happened.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 48,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
Pay the women better, market the sport properly, watch as you make more than you spent on marketing and paying them.

If you don't? Fire yourself and let someone who knows how to do their job take yours.
Who will watch? Nobody, and without viewers, you make no money

__________________
Changes come. Keep your dignity. Take the high road. Take it like a man.
spintheblackcircle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:11 PM
  #96
HockeyMomx2
Registered User
 
HockeyMomx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Country: United States
Posts: 3,389
vCash: 500
As the Mom of two female hockey players, one who is just finishing up her college career, one who has attended a National Camp and a son who has attended a National Camp, as well as a former professional in the world of mens hockey, I can tell you folks who think this is about money for these ladies pockets couldn't be more wrong than you are. This is about the girls game period and the money and focus that USA Hockey lacks on the girls side of the game starting at the beginner level. The differences in how the boys/men are treated vs. the girls/womens would have had every NCAA athletic school in the country in hot water over Title IX. USA Hockey could stand to take a look at Hockey Canada and how they have done right by their girls and women's national teams and programs.

HockeyMomx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:15 PM
  #97
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyMomx2 View Post
USA Hockey could stand to take a look at Hockey Canada and how they have done right by their girls and women's national teams and programs.
Not every hockey program has the luxury of having a waiting list for sponsors.

Hockey Canada can do many things that no other national hockey programs can do.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:18 PM
  #98
Proust*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,522
vCash: 500
So it seems that capitalism discriminates against minorities.

I love how as soon as something might not be a completely free-market, hyper-capitalist idea, it is not even worth considering. This kind of attitude is why the USA is a giant mess.

If marketers can get that many people to elect a complete numbskull President, then I am sure you can get people to watch Women's hockey.

Proust* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:26 PM
  #99
peck420
Registered User
 
peck420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 337
vCash: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proust View Post
So it seems that capitalism discriminates against minorities.
Capitalism certainly does. It always caters to the largest market.
Quote:
I love how as soon as something might not be a completely free-market, hyper-capitalist idea, it is not even worth considering. This kind of attitude is why the USA is a giant mess.
Marketing made US elections emotional (as with many other nations, my own included). Hockey Canada made hockey in Canada emotional. When that was done, they tied it to the also emotional political end. Now Hockey Canada is ingrained in Canadian identity, and gets a far larger share of the attention than other Canadian sports.

The US could try it, but I don't think that hockey will get to the same emotional level in the US psyche as hockey enjoys in Canada. At least, not in the short term.

peck420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2017, 12:45 PM
  #100
Ether Prodigy
Fearless Leader
 
Ether Prodigy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kabidjan18 View Post
This comment is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, any comparisons to Canada are completely misguided. Because of our Cold War History, the US has always refused to have any centralization involved with its sporting federations as a juxtaposition to the Russian system. We don't have a Ministry of Sport, and that's why Title IX only applies to collegiate sports. The Canadian government is the single-largest investor in Sport Canada, at roughly 200 million a year. USA Hockey runs on a business model, not like a government program, and naturally the products invested in most heavily are those that bring in the most revenue. Furthermore, Hockey is the most popular sport in Canada, while in America it lags in popularity among women behind soccer, softball, volleyball, basketball and track, without adding in football and baseball for the men. In American hockey as a general rule there isn't that much money to go around, or potential interest both at the spectator level and the participant level (since 60% of revenue comes from membership and fees).

Which brings us to marketing. Marketing is actually not free. It can actually be very expensive. They do market both National Teams to a certain extent. The type of vast and expansive marketing campaign you're suggesting would be wildly expensive. Then there's the question of whether or not the investment would produce any yields. Many sports leagues rise out of a presence of supply, and not demand. Often, there were a number of good athletes in a sport, therefore a league was formed, rather than there were a large body of consumers lacking suitable entertainment options, therefore a league was formed. The entertainment market is heavily saturated if not over-saturated. There is no shortage of entertainment options, and within the sports world male sports have traditionally had much higher returns than female sports. To this day the CWHL does not pay it's athletes salary, and remains a 5 team league. This, in traditionally hockey-crazed Canada, which doesn't struggle to pull in revenue from domestically hosted events like the US does even on the men's side. So not only is a large marketing campaign fiscally impossible, it would probably also be ineffective, and similar measures have taken place in other more popular american sports with little or no return on investment. Furthermore, while the minuscule revenue gains made from such an investment would likely lose USA Hockey money, those small gains would surely be used against them in negotiations against the players.

It's a difficult and frustrating situation, but if solutions were so apparent then measures would have already been taken to implement them, and what USA Hockey is doing may not be morally right but it is not illegal.
I agree with this. If it was as simple as "market more" or "do this" then USA Hockey would jump at it in order to avoid being the bad guys.

But there are no easy answers here.

Ether Prodigy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.