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

Bettman needs to tell certain onwers to simply shut up and look for the greater good of the game, and shorten the season during Olympic years.

I also think that some European fans need to understand the first paragraph below, ie why there is a reluctance by some owners to break the season during Feburary. The obvious counterpoint is that hockey should be able to stand on it's own 2 feet and not worry about other sport's schedule's (but unfortunately at this point in time, it can't....)

.....
For many American-based teams, the reluctance is understandable. The Olympics fall during what amounts to their Christmas season: post-Super Bowl, pre-March Madness, a fallow time on the sporting calendar when hockey is as easy a sell as it ever is going to be. To stay dark at money time, NHL owners want tangible benefits, something that rings the cash registers and not merely stirs the fans and the soul
.....
Although the NHL is sending its players to the Olympics through the 2010 Games in Vancouver, that level of commitment has to change. The league can't continue to straddle the fence. If Bettman still believes the Olympics provide a global platform that ultimately will make the game grow, he simply has to tell his owners to release players for the Games with a smile (edit: Jazz: Ed Snyder). If not, the NHL, in the next CBA, should extricate itself from the Olympic commitment, a move likely to rile the Players Association
.........
To make the Olympic hockey tournament mature, the NHL must give it a break. A decent break. Canada captain Joe Sakic thinks an earlier start to training camp and a September start to the season would allow the Olympics -- and the regular season -- to feel less hurried. "Certainly it would be nice to have more days," said teammate Vincent Lecavalier, who plays for Cup-champion Tampa Bay. "I know we get back [from Turin] on a Monday night and we play Tuesday. Some guys get home and play back-to-back [games]. They were talking about it yesterday." But after winning the golden ticket with its last CBA -- controlled labor costs -- the NHL should suck it up and shorten the season every quadrennial to make the tournament better and less risky. Cut four games. Maybe six
....

You can read the entire article here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/olympics/2006/writers/02/15/nhl.olympics/index.html

I think the SI should look more at the numbers. Who stands to benefit the most from this? The IOC and hosting country.

What does the NHL get out of this? Do they really "expand their markets" ? How many of you have got into women's hockey or started watching or putting money into bobsledging or skelaton?

I honestly don't think the NHL will get as much out of this as they think. In fact, I personally think that compared to how much the IOC benefits from this, its almost negligable.

Screw the Olympics, stick with the World Cup (which I show lukewarm interest in anyways)

Even if none of my teams players (Iginla, Regehr, Leopold) are involved, it wouldn't make me sad to see the NHL not participate in the Olympics.

For many American-based teams, the reluctance is understandable. The Olympics fall during what amounts to their Christmas season: post-Super Bowl, pre-March Madness, a fallow time on the sporting calendar when hockey is as easy a sell as it ever is going to be. To stay dark at money time, NHL owners want tangible benefits, something that rings the cash registers and not merely stirs the fans and the soul

Oh please, it happens once every four years. What kind of ******** is this? If your organization is in such bad shape that a two week period in February is that crucial in keeping it financially stable, then your city shouldn't have a professional hockey team.

THN suggested moving ice hockey to the Summer Olympics after 2010, which is an interesting proposition, to say the least.

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

Ok, I'll take a Stanley Cup and $100 million, and you can wear your jersey. :D

And I'll take my USA jersey every time Phanuthier.

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: The owners would love for you to negotiate the next CBA on the players behalf. I'm sure the vast majority of players who don't go to the olympics would be thrilled to give up money so a few of their counterparts could go.
:biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Hm...NHL players in the Olympics begins...at the sametime, NHL revenues consistently increase annually until the lockout.

Are owners expanding their LOCAL markets? No. Their worldwide exposure and markets? Yes.

that john garrett idiot was whining on about how bad the olympics are for the NHL.

how any hockey fan can watch a Slovkia - Russia game like on opening day and say this is bad, is crazy.

there's only 8 more days left of this (for another four years) -- i'm relishing every shift.

The important thing about that article is that its written by SI, so you can just throw it right in the trash.

Hm...NHL players in the Olympics begins...at the sametime, NHL revenues consistently increase annually until the lockout.

Are owners expanding their LOCAL markets? No. Their worldwide exposure and markets? Yes.

That is why the shouldn't be in the olympics in the current setup. The local fanbase is the revenue that makes the teams survive or make money. Not the European market. the NHL has shown year in and year out that it is a ticket driven league. Meaning it derives a majority of its revenue from ticket and suite sales. These are two things that the "worldwide market" can do nothing to help.

What a bunch of ********.

Ok, I'll take a Stanley Cup and $100 million, and you can wear your jersey. :D

I'll take those, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like international competition but my priority is always the NHL team that I support. I just hate to see players injured or fatigued at the middle of regular season because of NON-NHL GAMES.

That's the reason why I don't mind seeing no NHLers in Olympics. As Phanuthier said, we can find a replacement. Make World Cup more competitive. Why not?

If fans still want to see NHLers in Olympics regardless of the competitiveness level of World Cup, then shorten the schedule once every 4 year! As SI.com said, start the season a bit earlier (hey, look how European soccer leagues do due to upcoming World Cup), give'em more break, and shorten the season to 70 games or something. I guarantee it will help to prevent injuries.

Players are not robots, they are humans. Don't forget.

I'll take those, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like international competition but my priority is always the NHL team that I support. I just hate to see players injured or fatigued at the middle of regular season because of NON-NHL GAMES.

That's the reason why I don't mind seeing no NHLers in Olympics. As Phanuthier said, we can find a replacement. Make World Cup more competitive. Why not?

If fans still want to see NHLers in Olympics regardless of the competitiveness level of World Cup, then shorten the schedule once every 4 year! As SI.com said, start the season a bit earlier (hey, look how European soccer leagues do due to upcoming World Cup), give'em more break, and shorten the season to 70 games or something. I guarantee it will help to prevent injuries.
Players are not robots, they are humans. Don't forget.

It will not only prevent injuries but produce better hockey. Teams would have a week to practice and get organized. Team USA today looked disorganized and tired. If they had been there a week that wouldn't be an issue. Although I'm an American it was hard not to be happy for Latvia. :innocent: I always have a soft spot for the underdog.

I think the shortened season would be a tough sell now because the owners and PLAYERS would be against it. With the new CBA the cap would be affected by lost revenu from 10-12 less games.

The players wouldn't agree to it. Take a hit in pay?

I don't think the owners will agree to it either. Dispite playing 72 or 82 games, they will have to pay the same building costs, ect ect, so it doesn't exactly cut down on expenses.

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 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.
And how many people stick with it and watch it?

I'd be interested in seeing how the numberse did after 1998 in Nagano. I doubt it had very much interest there - even after actually playing a couple NHL games there, ie. Flames vs SJ - and I also doubt you'll European and/or Asian numbers growing for the NHL.

We showed them in 1998. They got it again in 2002. I don't know how many times we need to push it.

Whats going wrong.. is that the NHL cannot market itself worth **** in the rest of the world.
You can find kids in Chicago Bulls shirts in Nairobi, Yankee caps in New Zealand and people watching the Superbowl on Easter Island.

The NHL goes nowhere near that.

And this isn't small money we're talking about, there's lots of money to be made by selling paraphanelia in Asia, Central Europe etc.

Whats going wrong.. is that the NHL cannot market itself worth **** in the rest of the world.
You can find kids in Chicago Bulls shirts in Nairobi, Yankee caps in New Zealand and people watching the Superbowl on Easter Island.

The NHL goes nowhere near that.

And this isn't small money we're talking about, there's lots of money to be made by selling paraphanelia in Asia, Central Europe etc.
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 know what market they're targetting, I just don't know if they're pointing the gun in the right direction. Hell, they're still trying to secure a market in the USA. They were on the right track in 1994, and they have to go back to what was making them great then.

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

Once again, SI demonstrates how little it knows about hockey. Citing Colorado's collapse from a 3-1 series lead in 1998 sounds like a convincing stance against extended season fatigue, unless you count the number of Olympians on the Oilers' roster at the time: oops, it's the same.

That is why the shouldn't be in the olympics in the current setup. The local fanbase is the revenue that makes the teams survive or make money. Not the European market. the NHL has shown year in and year out that it is a ticket driven league. Meaning it derives a majority of its revenue from ticket and suite sales. These are two things that the "worldwide market" can do nothing to help.

The local fansbase is your core. You know you have it. See: the lockout and the return of the league.

Expanding the marketplace is NHL's goal for the Olympics. It's not about 'surviving' it's about tapping into a wider audience.

The local fansbase is your core. You know you have it. See: the lockout and the return of the league.

Expanding the marketplace is NHL's goal for the Olympics. It's not about 'surviving' it's about tapping into a wider audience.
If you can make a couple bucks, go for it, but I wouldn't take a hit from my primary market for it.

I look back to 2002 when Canada was glowing with pride when Mario Lemieux put it all for Canada ... for about a day. I don't think anyone even remembers now. But, Pittsburg sure remembers that he abandoned his own team to take part of the Olympics.

that john garrett idiot was whining on about how bad the olympics are for the NHL.

how any hockey fan can watch a Slovkia - Russia game like on opening day and say this is bad, is crazy.

there's only 8 more days left of this (for another four years) -- i'm relishing every shift.

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)

And how many people stick with it and watch it?

I'd be interested in seeing how the numberse did after 1998 in Nagano. I doubt it had very much interest there - even after actually playing a couple NHL games there, ie. Flames vs SJ - and I also doubt you'll European and/or Asian numbers growing for the NHL.

We showed them in 1998. They got it again in 2002. I don't know how many times we need to push it.

I was more talking about getting kids interested in playing hockey, benefiting the sport hockey, which perhaps in the long run would benefit the nhl. To get more people watching the nhl, you need to have a much larger interest for hockey. And you do that by expanding the sport in each country, which you don't do by not advertisning your sport around the world. Of course you can't expect that the asians will watch this olympics and suddenly decide that hockey is something they should expand, it needs much more than that. But if you want hockey to grow, I think the olympics is one very good means.

What does the NHL get out of this? Do they really "expand their markets" ?

They absolutely do. I personaly started following the NHL after watching the hockey tournament in the Nagano Olympics in '98 on TV. Had i not seen all those great players there, playing excellent and exciting hockey matches, i probably wouldn't have become a hockey fan that i am today. I know i'm just one little dude in friggin Croatia (where there is no hockey on TV other than the WC's and Olympics) but i'm sure there are others out there like me who became NHL fans for the same reasons. So i'm definately in favour of the NHL players participation. All that needs to be done is for the league to find the best solution to fit the event into its schedule every 4 years. That should not be so damn hard...

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 know what market they're targetting, I just don't know if they're pointing the gun in the right direction. Hell, they're still trying to secure a market in the USA. They were on the right track in 1994, and they have to go back to what was making them great then.

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


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.

After Canada won gold, NHL ratings in Canada increased significantly.

The NHL Olympic experiment needs the the US team to win gold, then they will reap the rewards.

The players also negotiated Olympic participation in the CBA, so it can't just be tossed aside (and I bet the players want the Olympics again next time as well).

Like I posted in another thread, the NHL should have started the season about a week earlier, This would have allowed for atleast 2 extra days at the start and end of the tournament and perhaps a slightly less exhausted schedule.

As for concentrating on the World Cup instead of Olympics, that tournament will never get the ratings Olympics get (outside of Canada) because the tournament lacks prestige and media interest. Plus the playoff games are in the middle of the night in Europe.

Oh please, it happens once every four years. What kind of ******** is this? If your organization is in such bad shape that a two week period in February is that crucial in keeping it financially stable, then your city shouldn't have a professional hockey team.

you did notice the complete lack of hockey last year, yes? dismiss such issues if you want, but it's completely ignoring the fact that even the "successful" franchises weren't exactly beating up on the bottom-line before.

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

no offense, but that opinion is completely ridiculous. are you seriously telling me that you would spurn MILLIONS of dollars that could set up your family for multiple generations of comfortable living just to wear a jersey in a tournament? if a player were to choose that stance, more power to them... but i don't see too many players making that decision.

After Canada won gold, NHL ratings in Canada increased significantly.

The NHL Olympic experiment needs the the US team to win gold, then they will reap the rewards.

The players also negotiated Olympic participation in the CBA, so it can't just be tossed aside (and I bet the players want the Olympics again next time as well).

the ratings see a bump following the olympics, but then return back to normal levels over time... people turn into watch their country play, get a lil bit interested... but then it's the same old thing and they have the old distractions elsewhere. it isn't as if the NHL is a new product that they're suddenly exposed to.

the Olympic effect on the NHL is a fallacy. it would be GREAT if it worked, but it doesn't. the ONLY way the NHL grows its existing markets is by having teams in those areas have consistent and extended success that builds a fanbase that is attached to the team... winning breeds fans... not some two-week tournament on the other side of the world.

as for interest in the NHL from Europeans... i think it's great that the participation is growing fans there, but the NHL's problems are large enough right now that it can't worry about building a fanbase abroad because the financial returns from that fanbase is trivial in comparison to the potential returns domestically that are necessary to support these franchises.

Not on a high horse or anythng, but I think you guys are missing the point.

The NHL has MUCH more to gain from letting it's players in the Olympics than you think. It's not playing in Torino, it's further in the future than a kneejerk HF could ever fathom

There's this little thing called the Winter Olympics being hosted again in 2010 -- Guess where it's at? An NHL City!!!! OMG!!!!!!

The NHL tried to bail on the Olympics and the IOC promptly told them that if they plan to make North American Olympiads their games to play, they basically weren't welcome at the games.

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.no offense, but that opinion is completely ridiculous. are you seriously telling me that you would spurn MILLIONS of dollars that could set up your family for multiple generations of comfortable living just to wear a jersey in a tournament? if a player were to choose that stance, more power to them... but i don't see too many players making that decision.


The PA would never go for that; the players would never go for that. Why would 750+ NHL players be willing to take a pay cut so ten-percent or so may have a chance to play on a National Team?

Not on a high horse or anythng, but I think you guys are missing the point.

The NHL has MUCH more to gain from letting it's players in the Olympics than you think. It's not playing in Torino, it's further in the future than a kneejerk HF could ever fathom

There's this little thing called the Winter Olympics being hosted again in 2010 -- Guess where it's at? An NHL City!!!! OMG!!!!!!

The NHL tried to bail on the Olympics and the IOC promptly told them that if they plan to make North American Olympiads their games to play, they basically weren't welcome at the games.



Very true ----- Vancouver pitched a fit when the NHL considered NOT going to Italy this year.

Another take (http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/torino2006/ice_hockey/news;_ylt=AiGyubBxI1w_XcBJngZbdT85nYcB?slug=dw-hockey021606&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

Time to pull plug on prosBy Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports | February 16, 2006

TURIN, Italy – After Latvia and the United States tied in men's hockey Wednesday, after the passionate Latvian fans waved flags and danced in the aisles, after the vast majority of remote controls in the U.S. tuned into American Idol, Arturs Irbe summed up the entire thing.

"You can say that this probably means more to us than to the American team," the former NHL and current Latvian goalie said.

Don't stop there, Arturs. It isn't just the American team that may not care all that much about its performance here at the Winter Olympics. It's all of America itself.

Every day, it seems tougher to be a hockey fan. Every day brings another reminder of how far the sport has slipped, how unlikely it is to ever capture imaginations again.

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.

<<<< snipped >>>>

After Canada won gold, NHL ratings in Canada increased significantly.

The NHL Olympic experiment needs the the US team to win gold, then they will reap the rewards.

The players also negotiated Olympic participation in the CBA, so it can't just be tossed aside (and I bet the players want the Olympics again next time as well).
well i hope mr bettman ramps up the hype machine in 2010 - the hockey will be prime time in LA -

After Canada won gold, NHL ratings in Canada increased significantly.

The NHL Olympic experiment needs the the US team to win gold, then they will reap the rewards.

The players also negotiated Olympic participation in the CBA, so it can't just be tossed aside (and I bet the players want the Olympics again next time as well).Bingo!

And the US team failing to make the QF round will be disastrous as well. Remember that NBC currently has the rights to both the NHL and the Olympics, so as long as that is the case, and they can cross-promote both properties effectively, they will push the NHL to make sure they are involved.

Don't get me wrong, I love international hockey, and get more stoked for an elite tournament like this than for the NHL playoffs, heck I spend more time in the International part of HF than the NHL side (and I'm also an admin of another International forum). I am even hoping that hockey catches on in more countries around the world (and Olympic participation helps that).

But the problem is that many NHL owners are only looking at the bottom line, and currently, breaking for the Olympics does not do much from a business point of view.

What does the NHL get out of this? Do they really "expand their markets" ?They absolutely do. I personaly started following the NHL after watching the hockey tournament in the Nagano Olympics in '98 on TV. Had i not seen all those great players there, playing excellent and exciting hockey matches, i probably wouldn't have become a hockey fan that i am today. I know i'm just one little dude in friggin Croatia (where there is no hockey on TV other than the WC's and Olympics) but i'm sure there are others out there like me who became NHL fans for the same reasons. So i'm definately in favour of the NHL players participation. All that needs to be done is for the league to find the best solution to fit the event into its schedule every 4 years. That should not be so damn hard...

I agree, and examples like Buda's are what will help.

The only question is how many "Budas" are there each time around (each Winter Olympics)? Now Hockey is alive in Croatia, but barely. If Buda can help introduce the game to some friends/family and they put some future kids in hochey, then they can help bring up Croatia's position in the hockey world (currently ranked 30th out of 45 playing nations). And eventually, if things go right, then Croatia will be producing NHL calibre players....

That is the best case scenario...

And how many people stick with it and watch it?

I'd be interested in seeing how the numberse did after 1998 in Nagano. I doubt it had very much interest there - even after actually playing a couple NHL games there, ie. Flames vs SJ - and I also doubt you'll European and/or Asian numbers growing for the NHL.

We showed them in 1998. They got it again in 2002. I don't know how many times we need to push it.

How can you doubt numbers without knowing what they are. Are the numbers, the number of Euro's/Asians in the NHL? Jersey's sold? Hats sold? How many people on this board are from various parts of the world and can't wait for streaming live games?

When the Yankees brought in Irabu as a pitcher it opened up the Japanese market. Then came Godzilla. Now, the Yankees sell TONS of stuff to NA Japanese as well as in Japan. The Yanks actually now have stadium advertising, yes advertising in Japanese...Do you think the cash cow of all professional sports teams need really needs such advertising? Nope. But they $ and marketplace are there now to pay for it because they built it.

Why do European, British, Latin American, and Mexican soccer teams play tournaments or 'exhibition' games in the US? Moreover, ever notice how those games are strategically placed by cultural representation in such markets? No doubt they are.

The same reason the NFL played in Mexico City this year - a regular season game. The same reason MLB plays in Japan, the Orioles invited and played Cuba in Baltimore. The same reason there is the NFL Europe.

How many hockey arenas did DAL have before the Stars settled in? None. Now, they have 20+ within the DFW area.

On the topic of this whole "compressed schedule" bit....

These are the number of days/game in the last 10 seasons, for the Oilers anyway :

Season Days/Game
1995-96 2.28
1996-97 2.32
1997-98 2.24
1998-99 2.30
1999-00 2.32
2000-01 2.23
2001-02 2.21
2002-03 2.16
2003-04 2.15
2005-06 2.18


You can read the rest of the entry here (http://www.mc79hockey.com/index.html#TOE)

Funny, in 2002, the schedule was actually less compressed than in the next two seasons, and this season, it's less compressed than the last two seasons.

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.

Not on a high horse or anythng, but I think you guys are missing the point.

The NHL has MUCH more to gain from letting it's players in the Olympics than you think. It's not playing in Torino, it's further in the future than a kneejerk HF could ever fathom

There's this little thing called the Winter Olympics being hosted again in 2010 -- Guess where it's at? An NHL City!!!! OMG!!!!!!

The NHL tried to bail on the Olympics and the IOC promptly told them that if they plan to make North American Olympiads their games to play, they basically weren't welcome at the games.
So... what? What's this big thing that's happening in the future? Are we gonna reap the benefits in 2050?

How can you doubt numbers without knowing what they are. Are the numbers, the number of Euro's/Asians in the NHL? Jersey's sold? Hats sold? How many people on this board are from various parts of the world and can't wait for streaming live games?

Because I know the profit of the NHL in 1994 was growing fast - almost to the level of the NBA's - but from 1996 - 2004 (included a World Cup and 2 Olympic tournaments) the NHL saw its dwindle, and in many markets, go spiralling off into the crapper.

Yeah, I guess the NHL was real successful from all those international tournaments, right?

Because I know the profit of the NHL in 1994 was growing fast - almost to the level of the NBA's - but from 1996 - 2004 (included a World Cup and 2 Olympic tournaments) the NHL saw its dwindle, and in many markets, go spiralling off into the crapper.

Yeah, I guess the NHL was real successful from all those international tournaments, right?

Save your energy the European fans just don't seem to get it.

Phanuthier,

Shanghai, Thailand, those places are in very warm climates, especially Thailand, (jungles, extreame humidity) Hockey has enough trouble making in roads in places like Florida, what makes you think hockey would become popular in those sorts of area's, without first becoming popular in Northern Asia?

Cities in China such as Qiqihar, Harbin, Beijing, are Northern cities, and have growing hockey scenes according to the information I've read. Aparantly in Qiqihar for example, hockey is the #1 sport and provides a large number of the players for their World Championship team. If you factor in China's booming economy, growing middle class, the room for growth in the game of hockey in that area is astonishing. The billionaire owner of the NY Islanders even pondered "perhaps its time time start building some ice rinks in China". As for Nagano and Japan, it would be difficult to know if it is having any affect at this point, as it has only been 8 years since then, and any effects in terms of prospects and interest that the Olympic Hockey's showing could have generated, might not be felt for afew more years yet. The problem is though, that simply the NHL and IIHF arn't doing enough outside of competitions such as the World Championships (Men's, Juniors, etc), World Cups, and Olympics to grow the game of hockey. With the next Olympics most likely being awarded to South Korea (they narrowly lost to Vancouver), the NHL has a further oppurtunity in Asia, but this team they have to make more of an effort at the grass roots.

They have to go down to the grass roots more aggressively than they are at this point, build some arena's in countries where public/private funding normally wouldn't exist, work with equipment makers to bring the cost of equipment down so the game can be more accessible to a wider range of the population, (cost of equipment isn't only a problem in poorer countries, it's a problem IN Canada) send retired coaches and players over to help train the teams of developing hockey nations (see team Isreal, which has improved dramatically with a retired NHL coaches help), make coaching/instructional videos in as many languages as possible and sell them at fair prices and large quantities to national hockey federations to distribute at a local level on their own. The Olympics is part of bringing the game, played at it's very highest level, to area's where they normally would not have a chance to see it. But they are only one step, and not the final solution for growing the game. Does it help? perhaps, but without more investment in grassroots the effects will probably only continue to be minimum.

So... what? What's this big thing that's happening in the future? Are we gonna reap the benefits in 2050?

Exactly, this isn't as much about the here and now, its about securing the future of the game, and making sure if the NHL tries to continue expansion, that they have a talent pool large enough that the one ice talent level can continue to grow, instead of becoming increasingly diluted by more teams and more competition from Russia for players.

Yeah, I know about Asia, ect ect. Do I think the Olympic games will help? Yeah, no doubt. Do I think it'll help to the point that its worth owners sacrificing seasons (i.e. Kiprusoff, Niedermayer, Lehtonen vs. Forsberg)? No, I don't. The losses for individual teams will far outweigh the total gains from the Olympics.

I personally think the NHL has enough trouble trying to secure a market in the USA, forget the World. We've tried to have exhibition and even regular season games across the ocean (ie. Japan) and its effect has been minimal thus far. At best, I'd give them the World Cup or World Championships, but there's no way (if I were an owner) I'll sacrifice a season for gains which will be minimal at best.

When the Yankees brought in Irabu as a pitcher it opened up the Japanese market. Then came Godzilla. Now, the Yankees sell TONS of stuff to NA Japanese as well as in Japan. The Yanks actually now have stadium advertising, yes advertising in Japanese...Do you think the cash cow of all professional sports teams need really needs such advertising? Nope. But they $ and marketplace are there now to pay for it because they built it.

Uh, you're comparing apples to oranges here.

In Japan, there is a genuine interest in baseball. Think about it, if Japan wasn't a baseball-dominated nation, would they even give a rat's *** if Matsui was a Yankee?

In Asia, there is no genuine interest in hockey. If you market the NHL in Asia, it's not easy... I don't think there are any Asians in the NHL (if you count Richard Park...).

I doubt the Nagano Olympics did much for hockey in Asia. It's a hot-cold-hot-cold thing. You get drawn in every 4 years, and in the pause in between, you go back to what you like - in Japan's case, baseball. Thus proves international hockey does NOTHING to market the sport on a macro scale for any non-hockey-interest area.

Because I know the profit of the NHL in 1994 was growing fast - almost to the level of the NBA's - but from 1996 - 2004 (included a World Cup and 2 Olympic tournaments) the NHL saw its dwindle, and in many markets, go spiralling off into the crapper.

Yeah, I guess the NHL was real successful from all those international tournaments, right?
"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...

Uh, you're comparing apples to oranges here.

In Japan, there is a genuine interest in baseball. Think about it, if Japan wasn't a baseball-dominated nation, would they even give a rat's *** if Matsui was a Yankee?.....
Ah, yes! Not to the same degree, but there would definately be some interest. Eg, Hockey is way down the totem pole in France, but Huet gets media coverage...

It's the whole "making it big in America" mystique....

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.

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 :D

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....

"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?

....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...

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.

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?

....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...

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/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=CP&Date=20060214&Category=CPSOLEIL&ArtNo=60215004&Ref=AR&Profile=5603&MaxW=700

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.

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... :shakehead

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..

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?

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?

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.. :dunno: .)

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...

... 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.

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.

...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

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?

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

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...

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).

... 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.

... 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.

... 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.

... 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.And my counter-arguement is there is long-term benefit to consider as well, not just the short term monetary gain. That is (and you have not yet responded to this, so I will re-iterate) there will be more hockey players from different parts of the world for the NHL to draw from.

Since the Nagano, you have seen hockey players from countries never before represented in the NHL (ala the NBA): France (Huet), Austria (Vanek), Japan (Fukufuji (LA prospect in their farm team)), Belarus (Kostitsyn), and I will guarantee that within 4 years, you will see new players from Denmark, Hungary, and Slovenia.

The Olympics is the only time when hockey is shown in primetime in some countries (like the 2 examples above of members from Croatia attested to).

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.
I honestly didn't know Canada hadn't won a gold in 50 years until they mentioned it in 2002.

Yes, the Czech's showed pride. Some guys don't. Smyth does, Kiprusoff doesn't. Lemieux does, Scott Niedermayer doesn't. Or just look at how many Russian players have declined invitation.

....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. ...Yes, it was....

The more I think about it, for the sake of future Olympic participation, if would be better if Canada will not win this year...that way the country could get hyped up for it again for 2010. I hate saying that, because I really want Canada to win on European soil....

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.
That's great, but how exactly did that benefit the NHL?

... 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.

Here's a simple reason: it helped the owners end the lockout, in terms favorable to them. They got the meat and potatoes (salary cap, revenue sharing), and the players got to pick the sides and veggies. This was one of them.

And my counter-arguement is there is long-term benefit to consider as well, not just the short term monetary gain. That is (and you have not yet responded to this, so I will re-iterate) there will be more hockey players from different parts of the world for the NHL to draw from.

Since the Nagano, you have seen hockey players from countries never before represented in the NHL (ala the NBA): France (Huet), Austria (Vanek), Japan (Fukufuji (LA prospect in their farm team)), Belarus (Kostitsyn), and I will guarantee that within 4 years, you will see new players from Denmark, Hungary, and Slovenia.

The Olympics is the only time when hockey is shown in primetime in some countries (like the 2 examples above of members from Croatia attested to).
Is getting a couple extra players worth teams sacrificing their season, and for some (ie. Ottawa, as above) blowing their chance at a cup that they haven't had in the 14 years they've been in the league, and it'll be another 10 if they lose Hasek or Redden for the rest of the season?

Here's a simple reason: it helped the owners end the lockout, in terms favorable to them. They got the meat and potatoes (salary cap, revenue sharing), and the players got to pick the sides and veggies. This was one of them.
The Olympics helped end the lockout?

And wasn't this an issue the NHL pursued just as much as the players?

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.That's great, but how exactly did that benefit the NHL?Easy, more stars to market around, both locally and back in the "obscure" country...it starts a positive cycle.

You don't think Buffalo is happy to have Vanek?

The Olympics helped end the lockout?

And wasn't this an issue the NHL pursued just as much as the players?

Everything I read made it sound like it was something the players wanted in the CBA.

Everything I read made it sound like it was something the players wanted in the CBA.
Yes, and it was what the owners wanted too.

Who pursued the idea of the NHL participating in the Olympics to begin with (1998)?

Is getting a couple extra players worth teams sacrificing their season, and for some (ie. Ottawa, as above) blowing their chance at a cup that they haven't had in the 14 years they've been in the league, and it'll be another 10 if they lose Hasek or Redden for the rest of the season?Players can get injured during the NHL season as well, so no difference there...

Beside, with the big ice, there are not as many hits anways, so the chances of injuries are less....how many season ending injuries did we have in Nagano and Salt Lake? I don't recall any.

Easy, more stars to market around, both locally and back in the "obscure" country...it starts a positive cycle.

You don't think Buffalo is happy to have Vanek?
So to have a couple extra stars in the league, 4-5 teams risk gutting their 1 in 30 year chance of winning the cup?

I'm not saying there's no benefits, don't get me wrong. I'm saying the benefits don't nearly outweigh the costs of teams that might be risking their season if one of their star players is lost due to the Olympics. This is why I think that, should there be no immediate (2 years) results, this is the last time we'll see the NHL in the Olympics.

Players can get injured during the NHL season as well, so no difference there...

Beside, with the big ice, there are not as many hits anways, so the chances of injuries are less....how many season ending injuries did we have in Nagano and Salt Lake? I don't recall any.
The injuries don't happen due to the Olympics... they happen after. Things like fatague and travel could and have lead to injuries after the Olympics.

Example of season ending injury: Mario Lemieux, 2002.

The injuries don't happen due to the Olympics... they happen after. Things like fatague and travel could and have lead to injuries after the Olympics.

Example of season ending injury: Mario Lemieux, 2002.Mario was already injured in 2002, and he admittedly paced his season to participate in the Olympics (he got flack in Pittsburgh over it). He did play a couple of games after Salt Lake before packing it in...

Here's a link:

http://proicehockey.about.com/library/weekly/aa030602a.htm

While the chance is minimal, it would be very big risk to send an injured player (ie. Kiprusoff, Niedermayer) to go play a gruelling Olympic schedual overseas, then come back.

Your topic you presented in this thread that owners should not worry about their investments for the "greater good of the game" - the fact of the matter is, if you are a contending team, a team that has a 1 in 30 year shot of winning a cup, there is no way you send your key players if they are injured. NHL owners have every right to be concerned with their investment.

... I think this is the NHL's last kick at the can. There's no use sending them to Vancouver.
Are you kidding me? Europe is forced to sell their best hockey players to NHL teams for coffee money. Until the new contract, the European club selling a newcoming world star got like $12,500 for giving away their player. That's coffee money. No wonder why the Russian League thought also the new contract was pure crap (which was only slightly better, or slightly less worse). "Ok, except for the coffee money, we will give you this wine opener as well."

You can see them play every night, season after season. And you can't let us Europeans see our own players for 2 weeks every 4th year? What's wrong with representing your country in a world competition? In NHL, teams switch residence in no time, nothing is worth anything if it isn't for the all precious $.

Since the Nagano, you have seen hockey players from countries never before represented in the NHL (ala the NBA): France (Huet), France was represented by Bozon before Nagano :teach:

And Belarus by Tsyplakov

Your topic you presented in this thread that owners should not worry about their investments for the "greater good of the game" - the fact of the matter is, if you are a contending team, a team that has a 1 in 30 year shot of winning a cup, there is no way you send your key players if they are injured. NHL owners have every right to be concerned with their investment.

I don't think anybody's saying you should send injured players.

Every other sport in the world does it... Allow their players to play for their national teams. Why should hockey be any different?
Handball for example, which is pretty big in some bigger as well as smaller European countries, as well as the hockey countries of Sweden and Russia, has a break in the middle of the season to play either European or World championships.
I guarantee far more injuries happen there than at the hockey tournament in the Olympics.
Footballers have pretty meaningless friendless a few times in the season and players get injured.
And Chimp does have a point... Best European players play in the NHL... And while I'm sure the popularity of hockey wouldn't drop in Canada if the European clubs asked for football money for player transfers (which you still may see with Russians), I think some of the flavour would be lost if there were no Europeans coming over to play anymore.

This isn't 1980. It's simply not healthy for a sport to stay secluded and apart from the rest of the world. :dunno:

I honestly didn't know Canada hadn't won a gold in 50 years until they mentioned it in 2002.

Yes, the Czech's showed pride. Some guys don't. Smyth does, Kiprusoff doesn't. Lemieux does, Scott Niedermayer doesn't. Or just look at how many Russian players have declined invitation.
It's not a good thing the NHL players are becoming more and more like the NBA diva sissies. "Boo-hoo, I don't get any money for this, I don't want to play! I want another ferrari."

Players should know it's a priviliege doing something you love as a job and earning tons of money for it. You don't give them the right signals by telling them "forget about anything but you and your salary."

In most parts of the world, the national team, in EVERY sport, is the biggest thing. You take pride in representing your country, you don't consider it "a ******* extra duty which you don't get any extra $$$ bonus for." Sadly, in hockey, this is changing to the worse.

Philadelphia is whining like hell on Forsberg not to play. I don't think they get what an honour it is to him to represent his country. He won't play if he doesn't feel 100%, but I think it shows something that he didn't care one bit about them whining on him, he still made his own decision. Ask Mats Sundin why he has jumped into every single crappy World Championship in spring when he has had the ability (after Toronto has been eliminated and he feels like ****), which is every year in some small country, with little status. He does it because he considers it an honour to represent his country and he knows how much it means for his fellow countrymen. Even if he could need the rest and he is tired, he still goes there. And we love him for it. Mats Sundin is considered much bigger than Niklas Lidström and Markus Näslund for example, because he has represented and performed for his country so much more (especially in Lidströms case, it's kind of unfair, since Detroit always advances so far and he almost never have any opportunity).

We need more Mats Sundin and less Kobe Bryant athletes.

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.Just in case you didn’t notice, Latvia tied US the other day and yesterday Swiss beat Czech Republic. AND Belarus was 4th in the last Olympics. Besides, countries like Kazakhstan, Latvia, Belarus, Switzerland, Germany..are only going to furtherly improve pretty soon..

Because I know the profit of the NHL in 1994 was growing fast - almost to the level of the NBA's - but from 1996 - 2004 (included a World Cup and 2 Olympic tournaments) the NHL saw its dwindle, and in many markets, go spiralling off into the crapper.

Yeah, I guess the NHL was real successful from all those international tournaments, right?So….what?
For what we can know numbers would have been even worse without Olympics and WC..

From 1995 through 2004 the NHL product on the ice has been sucking, that’s the first reason for the bad spiralling.

Another good reason could be their pathetic marketing program..

Everyone (unbiased) really thinking that taking part at the Olympics is not going to help the NHL in the long terms must be really shortsighted.


The point is to do it properly. Cause if you make the best players play 120 games in 240 days they are going to be too tired to show how good they are when the casual observer is watching. That’s’ a valid point for the NHL alone, too.

Example: suppose i am not an hockey fan and I am going to watch a game at the Olympics cause someone told me the bests in the world are going to be there.
That night the big stars are playing their 4th game in 5 days along which they had to recover from the jet leg too.. and that after playing a lot of NHL games in the few days before. Potential result: the stars are exhausted and they suck, so I come away from the game thinking “ Yes, this new (for me) game is funny but, are these the best players of the NHL? Not a big deal..”

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 Olympicslol, the next Olympics are in Vancouver and you really think NHL stars won’t be there? :biglaugh:

I think they should see about switching hockey to the summer olympicsAgreed on the rest of your post, but not on this one.
Hockey is one of the biggest things (and in some countries THE sport) at the Winter Olympics. In the Summer Olympics would be lost.. and wasted.

I think what could be improved is the timing of Winter games as a whole.
During the Summer games a lot of people is on vacation or can plain vacation if they want and has the time to care about, watch and attend the games. In February most people works and won’t do that. On a side note, through the second half of February till its end (when Olympics finish), people is already desiring Spring more than snow, and in some potential hosting places at the end of February snow and ice are often running out already..

My thought is that they should play the Winter games from, say, December 22nd through January 9th.

But I know there would be a problem to solve for hockey, with the ongoing World Junior Championships.. ;)

France was represented by Bozon before Nagano :teach:

And Belarus by Tsyplakov
Ah yes, Bozon I forgot about...thanks. :)

I purposefully left out Tsyplakov and Salei (Belarus) because they were brought up in the old Soviet system and just happened to be from Belarus. The new crop of players are entirely developed by the Belorussian program

The Olympics helped end the lockout?

And wasn't this an issue the NHL pursued just as much as the players?

The IOC was the driving force this time …….and Vancouver pitching a fit.

So….what?
For what we can know numbers would have been even worse without Olympics and WC..

From 1995 through 2004 the NHL product on the ice has been sucking, that’s the first reason for the bad spiralling.

Another good reason could be their pathetic marketing program..

Everyone (unbiased) really thinking that taking part at the Olympics is not going to help the NHL in the long terms must be really shortsighted.


The point is to do it properly. Cause if you make the best players play 120 games in 240 days they are going to be too tired to show how good they are when the casual observer is watching. That’s’ a valid point for the NHL alone, too.

Example: suppose i am not an hockey fan and I am going to watch a game at the Olympics cause someone told me the bests in the world are going to be there.
That night the big stars are playing their 4th game in 5 days along which they had to recover from the jet leg too.. and that after playing a lot of NHL games in the few days before. Potential result: the stars are exhausted and they suck, so I come away from the game thinking “ Yes, this new (for me) game is funny but, are these the best players of the NHL? Not a big deal..”



How about this …… viewership for Turin is down 36-percent compared to Salt Lake and 22-percent compared to Nagano …….. how does that help the NHL?

How about this …… viewership for Turin is down 36-percent compared to Salt Lake and 22-percent compared to Nagano …….. how does that help the NHL?Without NHL in Torino viewership of NHLers would be down 100-percent.

btw, those figures are North American? Cause i think that would make them meaningful considering the timing of games played in Torino comparing with when they were played in SLC. :sarcasm:

I'm sorry, but there is just something about professional athletes competing not for reward but for country that supercedes business concerns to me. If I am a professional athlete, the greatest pride in my life would not be to win a Stanley Cup or sink a 100 million dollar contract, but to put on the "USA" on the front of my chest.

Good luck winning a CBA battle on this one. Because if I am a player, this issue is damn well more important than increasing the salary cap. If I am an athlete, I'd give up a few extra million dollars on my contract just for the opportunity to play for the United States of America.

Here here, I agree. Money is not everything contrary to popular belief.

Oh please, it happens once every four years. What kind of ******** is this? If your organization is in such bad shape that a two week period in February is that crucial in keeping it financially stable, then your city shouldn't have a professional hockey team.

From what I've been reading on various boards, I'd say about 80 percent of in favor of taking the NHL from the games are American.

Maybe it's because the US team hasn't been awesome so far. Or maybe it's because Americans still don't have any nationalistic feelings about hockey,

I dunno.

But more than anyone, Americans gripe about it.
Although, i expect sens fans to start griping soon.

The IOC was the driving force this time …….and Vancouver pitching a fit.
If the IOC and Vancouver is driving it, great.

If the NHL participates in it, great. But I don't see the NHL bending over and accomidating the Olympics needs (like this thread is to suggest). If we got healthy players, they'll get to go. If they're injured, they're not going to play.

Okay, there seems to be some solidified disagreement on the Olympics issue..
However, can we all agree that at the very least the NHL and IIHF arn't doing enough to grow the game of hockey world wide?

Especially if the NHL can get back on better financial footing, a major priority should be trying to help grow the popularity of the game internationally, and so also grow the talent pool from which to draft (and have players from a larger number of countries than ever before).

I can definatly agree with that.