UPD: US Women's NT and USA Hockey reach deal

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by KingMoo

im with you on this one. I understand that some subsidies are required to keep the program afloat, but 100k plus expenses is well above and beyond what they deserve. Many pro sport players contribute in teams that turn a profit, yet they get a much lower salary. Worst part is now the path is paved for other women's programs to basically unionize and threaten to quit unless they receive their handouts too.

Read the post. Read the poster. Was not colored shocked.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

Good for those women. 70k as we know pales in comparison to what the average poster on this board makes and with the costs of living going steadily upwards this is basically just a living wage.

It's a good deal, and clearly, the money was there to give them.

the average poster on this board makes well above 70k ?

and 70k is basically a living wage?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by robaur

the average poster on this board makes well above 70k ?

and 70k is basically a living wage?

$70k, statistically, is the point at which people are able to live a life without worrying about money. It's the magic number. Good for the women.

[KingMoo]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

$70k, statistically, is the point at which people are able to live a life without worrying about money. It's the magic number. Good for the women.

isnt it 70k USD ?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by polak

Doesn't matter. The salaries of the players should be paid for by the money they generate, not the mom's and dad's trying to put their kid through hockey.

Want to pool all the money that both national teams generate? Cool. Taking money from grassroots to pay these girls a salary that's $20 grand more than the average american makes is nuts.

Yeah. Fcuk those women trying to get enough money to live on.

It baffles me how you are so against these people making a salary. Why stop here? Why not go to every person that you perceive to be overpaid and and call them out for it? Remember to only focus on revenue that can be specifically linked to that person in that year, and don't focus on any macro level areas, training to get to that point, or future goals.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Yeah. Fcuk those women trying to get enough money to live on.

It baffles me how you are so against these people making a salary. Why stop here? Why not go to every person that you perceive to be overpaid and and call them out for it? Remember to only focus on revenue that can be specifically linked to that person in that year, and don't focus on any macro level areas, training to get to that point, or future goals.

Don't you know, only people who generate revenue for for profit entities deserve to be paid. The rest of us are just takers.

Never mind the proper term for someone who values money over love is "whore". Never you mind.

[polak]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Yeah. Fcuk those women trying to get enough money to live on.

It baffles me how you are so against these people making a salary. Why stop here? Why not go to every person that you perceive to be overpaid and and call them out for it? Remember to only focus on revenue that can be specifically linked to that person in that year, and don't focus on any macro level areas, training to get to that point, or future goals.

If you think these athletes deserve to make 70 Grand a year funded by membership dues from grassroots hockey for playing maybe 10 games a year that barely anyone watches or pays to see because they played the sexism card (with little basis for it) and basically guilt tripped USA Hockey publicly into paying them that then go for it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by polak

If you think these girls deserve to make 70 Grand a year funded by membership dues from grassroots hockey for playing maybe 10 games a year that barely anyone watches or pays to see because they played the sexism card (with little basis for it) and basically guilt tripped USA Hockey publicly into paying them that then go for it.

Who do you think little girls playing hockey in the US look up to?

They represent their country. They're damn good. They won. Good for them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by KingMoo

isnt it 70k USD ?

I used to make $70k CAD - I wasn't worried about ####. I also didn't feel like I needed to make a ton more money.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by polak

If you think these girls deserve to make 70 Grand a year funded by membership dues from grassroots hockey for playing maybe 10 games a year that barely anyone watches or pays to see because they played the sexism card (with little basis for it) and basically guilt tripped USA Hockey publicly into paying them that then go for it.

Laugh. You called them girls.

Anyway, athletes have been paid for decades to do train for weird and wonderful sports that we only watch for two weeks every couple years. Plenty of people have no doubt played the "I don't know what I'm talking about but these people should not be paid because I don't care about their sport" card that you just played, yet the practice continues.

The women's national team inspires kids to get involved in the sport. This is pretty clear. Is it worth paying them annually to do so? I can't really say, but I'm sure they do more to get kids into the sport than a million PSAs and bureaucrat-fuelled feel-good programs.

[nickerjones]

Originally Posted by polak

If you think these girls deserve to make 70 Grand a year funded by membership dues from grassroots hockey for playing maybe 10 games a year that barely anyone watches or pays to see because they played the sexism card (with little basis for it) and basically guilt tripped USA Hockey publicly into paying them that then go for it.

I think the only part that is difficult for me if they are getting paid from membership dues that do basically nothing and this will likely cause them to rise.


When I was in Oklahoma our adult league forced us to have USA Hockey insurance ( $40 a year or something) to participate. Most leagues in the states require it and it's separate and on top of league fees. The idea is that it was supposed to protect the rink and you if you were injured playing. My buddy broke his ankle in a USA hockey sanctioned league game. They would not cover his injuries due to having a ref that wasn't qualified. I have heard many horror stories about this. USA Hockey (and Hockey Canada to an extent) seem to really be just insurance sales companies that also dabble in hockey.

[polak]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Laugh. You called them girls.

Anyway, athletes have been paid for decades to do train for weird and wonderful sports that we only watch for two weeks every couple years. Plenty of people have no doubt played the "I don't know what I'm talking about but these people should not be paid because I don't care about their sport" card that you just played, yet the practice continues.

The women's national team inspires kids to get involved in the sport. This is pretty clear. Is it worth paying them annually to do so? I can't really say, but I'm sure they do more to get kids into the sport than a million PSAs and bureaucrat-fuelled feel-good programs.

I actually caught myself writing "these guys" cause i say "these guys" a lot regardless of gender and Ive been trying to avoid screwing that up here. Wasn't trying to have it come off like that. Fixed.

[indes]

Lol what a joke, it's oft said on this board that 'players make millions' just to play a game. Those player generate billions of dollars. Now I guess anyone who puts in the dedication deserves to be paid? I agree with the posters who said these athletes should be paid the same as other Olympic athletes.

[Resolute 14]

Why am I not surprised Polak is unhappy at women getting paid?

They had the weight of the law behind them and they had proper leverage. Just like their male counterparts, they negotiated the best deal they could.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by polak

If you think these athletes deserve to make 70 Grand a year funded by membership dues from grassroots hockey for playing maybe 10 games a year that barely anyone watches or pays to see because they played the sexism card (with little basis for it) and basically guilt tripped USA Hockey publicly into paying them that then go for it.

I really enjoy how short sighted you can be.

If USA Hockey wants to grow the game, especially the female side, then they are going to have to inspire the current children to want to play hockey. If they know that they can make $70,000 if they are one of the top 23 women hockey players in the country, versus making $6,000, they might continue on, rather than going into another career. You can argue they should be playing for love of the game, but at some point you have to pay your bills, and figure out what you'll do after your hockey career is over. If the women had been making basically nothing for the first 30 years of their lives, and then retire, what kind of wages could they make afterwards? What savings would they have? If there is no incentive to continue to play hockey, then USA Hockey suffers, and hockey as a whole suffers.

The money really is a drop in the bucket for USA Hockey. It is in no way affecting grassroots hockey in any way, shape, or form. Maybe there are only 10 games now, but if they continue to grow the game, that number will also continue to rise.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why am I not surprised Polak is unhappy at women getting paid?

What a ####ing ridiculous comment.

They didn't have the law on their side considering this never went to court and the men don't get paid 70K a year from the national program.

It was going public and negotiating in bad faith claiming they were fighting for equal treatment but instead of asking for the same thing the mens team get (first class travel, tickets for family and separate rooms), they demanded high wages on top of everything else.

I have absolutely nothing against women getting paid, what an asinine comment. I do have something against athletes whining that they don't make enough money when their is very little interest in their sport and taking that money from development was just a cherry on top.

You, just like the rest of the US public fell for their baseless "sexism" tactics and they got their way. Kudos I guess. Funny how they came out of this earning substantially more than what the US Mens Team gets from USA Hockey.

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by Locke

Holy hell!!

Where did all that money come from?

$70K per year to play like 15 meaningful games a decade? Wow.

Well...good on the Ladies I guess. Hopefully this doesnt mean that Girls youth hockey goalies have to stuff their socks with newspaper.

Taylor Hall gets paid a lot more than that and hasn't played one yet.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by polak

What a ####ing ridiculous comment.

They didn't have the law on their side considering this never went to court and the men don't get paid 70K a year from the national program.

It was going public and negotiating in bad faith claiming they were fighting for equal treatment but instead of asking for the same thing the mens team get (first class travel, tickets for family and separate rooms), they demanded high wages.

I have absolutely nothing against women getting paid, what an asinine comment. I do have something against athletes whining that they don't make enough money when their is very little interest in their sport and taking that money from development was just a cherry on top.

You, just like the rest of the US public fell for their baseless "sexism" tactics and they got their way. Kudos I guess. Funny how they came out of this earning substantially more than what the US Mens Team gets from USA Hockey.

The issue isn't that black and white (money generated = money earned). In society we pay for many things that people have little interest in for the betterment of living. There are grants for the ill and disabled. Should they not have grants because they don't produce the same amount of money as we do?

As I said before, it will come to a point where USA Hockey deems the women's game a failure and cut bait. Perhaps when the IOC throws it out of the Olympics. It just hasn't gotten there yet.

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The issue isn't that black and white (money generated = money earned). In society we pay for many things that people have little interest in for the betterment of living. There are grants for the ill and disabled. Should they not have grants because they don't produce the same amount of money as we do?

As I said before, it will come to a point where USA Hockey deems the women's game a failure and cut bait. Perhaps when the IOC throws it out of the Olympics. It just hasn't gotten there yet.

Ya, unfortunately I think this deal will serve the current team well for about 2 years. I love hockey period, and enjoy cheering both of our Canadian hockey teams on at the Olympics. Unfortunately the womans event is a 2 horse race every year and id be surlrised if it isnt cut for the following Olympics. If/when this happens I wont be shocked to see the deal fall apart. No way they pay 70k a year plus for a sport not in the olympics.

[sureLoss]

Is it fair to say that because the men are not being paid, it is unfair for the women to be paid?

The main reason that the men are not paid is that the majority of the players that go are professional players and their livelihoods are covered by the NHL/AHL/etc. salaries they get. In effect the men's team is subsidized by the NHL and other pro leagues.

The fairer question to ask is if the men's team weren't being supported by pro hockey, what should USA Hockey be paying them, then take that same methodology and apply it to the women.