Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 03-17-2017, 11:51 AM   #121
polak
In the Sin Bin
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Exp:
Default

You're glossing over the fact that they chose this life.

In this case, the sport doesn't make money. I think everyone here would agree that if Womens Hockey was as popular as Womens Tennis and was raking in cash that the women should be compensated as such. When their sole argument is "We don't make enough, look at how much they're spending on the boys!" and ignoring (or at least choosing not to address) all of the other factors that come into play, people are going to call them on their arguments.

People dismiss the complaints of high level athletes because they're not contributing much to society and no one feels sympathy for people choosing to live a life in sports over a more sustainable career. When you choose to focus your life around a game or art, be it Chess, Hockey, Soccer, Curling or Canadian Aussie Rules Football, you better be prepared for the reality of that choice. The reality that 99% of people will never be able to make a living doing just that. The "Pinnacle of my sport" "lifes work" argument doesn't hold water if there is no demand to watch your sport. Again, these people contribute nothing to society besides entertainment. If no one wants to watch you then you're S.O.L.

Frankly most athletes are extremely lucky to get any support at all. There's only a handful of sports that generate any real money.
polak is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 11:55 AM   #122
PepsiFree
First Line Centre
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Kehlani is my queen
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polak View Post
You're glossing over the fact that they chose this life.

In this case, the sport doesn't make money. I think everyone here would agree that if Womens Hockey was as popular as Womens Tennis and was raking in cash that the women should be compensated as such. When their sole argument is "We don't make enough, look at how much they're spending on the boys!" and ignoring (or at least choosing not to address) all of the other factors that come into play, people are going to call them on their arguments.

People dismiss the complaints of high level athletes because they're not contributing much to society and no one feels sympathy for people choosing to live a life in sports over a more sustainable career. When you choose to focus your life around a game or art, be it Chess, Hockey, Soccer, Curling or Canadian Aussie Rules Football, you better be prepared for the reality of that choice. The reality that 99% of people will never be able to make a living doing just that. The "Pinnacle of my sport" "lifes work" argument doesn't hold water if there is no demand to watch your sport. Again, these people contribute nothing to society besides entertainment. If no one wants to watch you then you're S.O.L.

Frankly most athletes are extremely lucky to get any support at all. There's only a handful of sports that generate any real money.
Polak lecturing on the art of contributing to society and not-complaining about the life you've chosen.

Alright, I've seen it all.

They've simply said: We're not going to be a part of this life anymore if this doesn't change. If they truly aren't valued, nothing will change and someone else will take their place, if they're right and they are valued, U.S. Hockey will make a change.

I still don't see how you see an issue in it.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 12:05 PM   #123
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polak View Post

Frankly most athletes are extremely lucky to get any support at all. There's only a handful of sports that generate any real money.
What are those sports (with sources please)?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 12:09 PM   #124
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

On a per team basis they should be funding Women's hockey as much as men's regardless of talent or enrolment. The goal of producing the best men's team and the best women's team should be treated equally. Now if do to higher participation men's hockey needs more teams to cultivate elite level talent then more funding would be needed on the men's side but the top team in men's and women's in each age category should be funded equally.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 12:09 PM   #125
Moneyhands23
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Polak lecturing on the art of contributing to society and not-complaining about the life you've chosen.

Alright, I've seen it all.

They've simply said: We're not going to be a part of this life anymore if this doesn't change. If they truly aren't valued, nothing will change and someone else will take their place, if they're right and they are valued, U.S. Hockey will make a change.

I still don't see how you see an issue in it.
They havent "simply" said anything. What they are saying/doing is a last minute strike to put pressure on USA hockey. I for one would love to see USA hockey tell them that if they sit out they are out and that is that. Also i think US hockey should go collect the bmw's stop subsidising their rent/food as well as all other "perks"

See how it goes.
Moneyhands23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 12:17 PM   #126
PepsiFree
First Line Centre
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Kehlani is my queen
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
They havent "simply" said anything. What they are saying/doing is a last minute strike to put pressure on USA hockey. I for one would love to see USA hockey tell them that if they sit out they are out and that is that. Also i think US hockey should go collect the bmw's stop subsidising their rent/food as well as all other "perks"

See how it goes.
Of course, USA hockey has only that option (which includes finding a new team or not icing one) and paying them more.

They should realistically do either one or the other, but USA Hockey's decision ultimately has no bearing on the validity of these athletes' issues with the way the sport is being run.

If USA Hockey is indeed under-funding this program, the issue will occur repeatedly throughout the future. So it's up to USA Hockey to ask whether they think it's a wide-reaching issue, or whether it's just this small specific group of athletes.

And yeah, it is pretty simple on the athletes' part. Fund the team better, or find a solution that doesn't involve this team. This isn't exactly last minute, either, they have been in negotiations for months (maybe a year?) already.

Last edited by PepsiFree; 03-17-2017 at 12:20 PM.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 06:36 PM   #127
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Looks like this now going to be negotiated publicly...

USA Hockey released this:
http://www.usahockey.com/news_articl...rrer_id=752796

Quote:
What is USA Hockey’s Proposal?

USA Hockey has offered terms to the Women’s National Team players for the Olympic training and performance period that include the opportunity to be provided with more than $90,000 in training stipends and other performance incentives for gold-medal performances in both the upcoming IIHF Women’s World Championship and the Olympic Winter Games. In the case of silver-medal performances in both events, players could receive $74,000 each. USA Hockey’s offer to the players is more than 50% greater than what they received in 2014. These figures do not include other substantial expenditures by USA Hockey for housing stipends, travel allowances, meal expenses, medical and disability insurance and the infrastructure that includes elite level support staff to train and prepare the players.

In non-Olympic years, players are typically together at various times throughout the year for approximately 60-70 days, for two competitions and three to four camps. Most players receive $24,000 each in cash training stipends, allocated by USA Hockey through funding provided by the U.S. Olympic Committee. Players are also eligible for a performance bonus up to $7,500 for winning gold in the world championship. Those funds are in addition to other expenditures for housing, travel, meals, insurance and the infrastructure that includes elite level support staff to train and prepare the players, a total that exceeds $1 million annually.

What are Players' Demands?

According to our calculations, the players’ demands would result in total player compensation in an Olympic year of approximately $210,000 per player if the team attains a silver medal and $237,000 for a gold medal. The total includes requested player compensation, per game payments, travel for a guest to every event and exhibition game, roster bonus, performance bonuses, training stipends, and benefits and payroll taxes that would be required under the proposal. This does not include the operational expenses of the team, including housing stipend, travel allowances, meal expenses, medical and disability insurance and the infrastructure that includes elite-level support staff to train and prepare the players, which in preparation for the 2014 Olympic Winter Games totaled more than $2 million. Further, the demands from the players also include a wide variety of other financial obligations to USA Hockey, such as business class airfare on flights of more than three hours, day care, nanny support and increased staffing that total more than $1.3 million.

Additionally, in a non-Olympic year, according to our calculations, the players’ demands would result in approximately $146,000 per player for a silver-medal performance and approximately $149,000 each for gold. The additional operational expenses of the team noted above are not included in those figures. Further, the demands from the players (business class airfare on flights of more than three hours, day care, nanny support and increased staffing, etc.) total more than $830,000.

In total, the player's demands, including compensation, benefits and other expenses of operating the program, exceed $8 million in an Olympic year and $5.7 in a non-Olympic year.
Player's response:

sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 06:48 PM   #128
Moneyhands23
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sureLoss View Post
Looks like this now going to be negotiated publicly...

USA Hockey released this:
http://www.usahockey.com/news_articl...rrer_id=752796



Player's response:

I have a feeling there will be a replacement team or no us team in this upcoming event.
Moneyhands23 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Moneyhands23 For This Useful Post:
Old 03-17-2017, 06:54 PM   #129
Moneyhands23
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Of course, USA hockey has only that option (which includes finding a new team or not icing one) and paying them more.

They should realistically do either one or the other, but USA Hockey's decision ultimately has no bearing on the validity of these athletes' issues with the way the sport is being run.

If USA Hockey is indeed under-funding this program, the issue will occur repeatedly throughout the future. So it's up to USA Hockey to ask whether they think it's a wide-reaching issue, or whether it's just this small specific group of athletes.

And yeah, it is pretty simple on the athletes' part. Fund the team better, or find a solution that doesn't involve this team. This isn't exactly last minute, either, they have been in negotiations for months (maybe a year?) already.

All good points.

I think its really easy for me at least to just look at the numbers and dismiss the demands.

I would hope for equallity in the work place, but I really wonder if this is a work place or lifestyle choice. Also its pretty easy for ppl that struggle to look at how well these athetes do live and dismiss this as entitlement or in my case a possible millennial attitudes (and yes I realise that the leaders are not millennials).

Last edited by Moneyhands23; 03-17-2017 at 07:01 PM.
Moneyhands23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 07:00 PM   #130
JetsFlamesFan
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by polak View Post
Is USA Hockey making any money from the womens game? Thats the question.

If they're not making more than expenses than the womens team doesn't really have a leg to stand on here.
Who cares? If they're all representing the same country and both representing USA Hockey, then I don't see how this is relevant. Evenly distribute however much you would normally pay both the men and women amongst all players.
JetsFlamesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 12:07 PM   #131
Cowboy89
#1 Goaltender
 
Cowboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red_Baron View Post
Or do they feel a right to be paid because they are at the pinnacle of something, regardless of if there is a viable market for it or not?
I think this is part of the sentiment behind it. One of the players interviewed said something along the lines of "I have more world championships than Christiano Ronaldo" as an argument to justify their position. Irrelevant argument on two counts.

Last edited by Cowboy89; 03-20-2017 at 12:37 PM.
Cowboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Old 03-20-2017, 12:39 PM   #132
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
I have a feeling there will be a replacement team or no us team in this upcoming event.
I'm with you. Woman's hockey is frankly not good, the parity that they hoped for is just not happening and if anything the gap is getting larger between NA teams and the rest of the world.

Basically the USA Hockey negotiation position is that we'll get rid of all of you and go to the next tier of players and we'll still win silver.

I'm not sitting here and callously saying we'll they shouldn't get paid for dedicating their lives to it. However Woman's hockey doesn't make a lot of money, not a lot of companies are rolling in to sponsor it in the USA, and until that changes then the players are going to realize that there's just not the money to give them a super confortable life while playing.

The next step is Hockey USA dissolves year around training and has a camp a week before the Worlds and a week before the Olympics and we'll be happy with just medaling .
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:09 PM   #133
DiracSpike
Scoring Winger
 
DiracSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
Exp:
Default

These women kind of need to realize their market...

Hockey in general is barely a blip on the radar in the USA. Add to that it being womens hockey and forget about it.

They're allowed to ask for whatever ridiculous number they want, and USA hockey in return is allowed to fire them and hire replacement players.
DiracSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:40 PM   #134
GordonBlue
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

what makes women's hockey worth that much more than any other Olympic sport?
you make the athletes paid professionals, you might as well give all the american athletes a full time living wage salary, plus perks.
no difference to me between the women's ice hockey team and the women's field hockey team.
I'd love to know what the US women's hockey team gets compared to their peers on the US Olympic team.

and reading their demands, it's insane what they're looking for. it's quite a list of entitlements.
GordonBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:43 PM   #135
iggy_oi
Powerplay Quarterback
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle View Post
If they don't like it, don't play anymore. It's as simple as that.
Isn't that exactly what they're doing?

Quote:
No one if forcing these women to play for the US National team. Most of them have a free University Education they received as a result of playing hockey, use those, get a career, and move on.
USA hockey obviously wants these women to play. They are trying to use that as leverage to get better treatment, if that fails I'm sure they'll be happy to fall back on their education. The problem for the national program is that the women playing below them are also backing them up, so it appears the choice will be to negotiate or gift Canada a gold medal, they don't want either outcome but when their entire program is built on beating Canada you would have to think they are going to try all they can to get the women's team back on board.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:45 PM   #136
iggy_oi
Powerplay Quarterback
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue View Post
what makes women's hockey worth that much more than any other Olympic sport?
you make the athletes paid professionals, you might as well give all the american athletes a full time living wage salary, plus perks.
no difference to me between the women's ice hockey team and the women's field hockey team.
I'd love to know what the US women's hockey team gets compared to their peers on the US Olympic team.

and reading their demands, it's insane what they're looking for. it's quite a list of entitlements.
Keep in mind field hockey and ice hockey have 2 very different levels of cost and risks. My guess is that hockey is one of the most expensive team sport programs for any country and or gender.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:52 PM   #137
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike View Post
These women kind of need to realize their market...

Hockey in general is barely a blip on the radar in the USA. Add to that it being womens hockey and forget about it.

They're allowed to ask for whatever ridiculous number they want, and USA hockey in return is allowed to fire them and hire replacement players.
Again, it is not just realizing the market. USA Hockey is legally obligated to provide 'equitable' funding between the men's and women's programs.

That said, the players are hurting their cause by allowing the debate to be focused on wages rather than the entire laundry list of issues they feel requires addressing.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 05:37 PM   #138
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Looks like progress was made in the meetings today:

sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2017, 07:03 PM   #139
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Then again, progress may have stalled...

https://www.apnews.com/75ed8cb76b464...s-replacements

Quote:
USA Hockey says it will begin reaching out to potential replacement players in case the women's national team boycotts the upcoming world championships over an ongoing wage dispute.

The organization says in a statement sent to The Associated Press that it's still prioritizing having the original team on the ice.

But USA Hockey informed players' representatives that it will be gauging replacement players' availability for the tournament, which begins March 31 in Plymouth, Michigan.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 03:24 AM   #140
FireGilbert
First Line Centre
 
FireGilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Exp:
Default

You'd have to think the idea of replacement players is just a negotiation tactic. I assume any fringe players would be showing support to the main team and wouldn't want to be known as scabs for the rest of their career. Is the US really going to send the C or D team? They would get smashed by Canada and silver wouldn't even be a guarantee.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.
FireGilbert is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016