No I get that, but what I'm saying is that they could probably dump this whole team, and go and recruit another team about 3 months before the Worlds, have a couple of practices, some beer and wings and win a medal at the Worlds or the Olympics.
I think we over romanticize about things like this because we're Canadians and the game is in our blood.
At the end of the day, what does the Olympic committee or USA Hockey really owe this team. Training, facilities, travel, equipment and coaching, they're not a pro organization, Its supposed to be about the opportunity and sacrifice.
100% agree. They can fill a team on a week's notice, and would still win Silver and even potentially challenge for Gold.
Per @espn USA Hockey spends approx $3.5 mil building up programs for boys. The amount they spend for comparable programs for girls? Zero.
I read somewhere that USA Hockey has a budget of $4 million and they do spend about $3.5 on boys programs, and they do spend a lot less on woman's programs. But I'm also betting that there are a lot more boys programs and a lot more interest in it.
Its probably pretty justifiable.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Its funny because I used to coach woman's tackle football (and not the legendary kind) and it had a world championship and provincials and all of that stuff and the players fundraised and paid to go.
And the common argument was why do the boys get all of this stuff and better funding and all of that.
And as a coach I would have loved to see more dollars going into the woman's program. But at the end of the day, it simply wasn't going to get the dollars because it wasn't on the same level of interest or execution as the boys football programs.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
At a certain point, the team is just going to tell those girls to piss off, and they'll build the team with other players.
Lets face facts, outside of the Olympics, there's not a die hard following for woman's hockey, especially in the States, and I don't know if the game is growing or not becuause frankly right now its Team USA and Team Canada and then a bunch of teams wearing double runner skates and wearing water wings in case they fall.
Is the Olympic dream about making money? Sure, but you also have to be marketable while making that money. I don't think that this sport is all that marketable. Its a sport in the Olympics where people go because (sexism alert) all the tickets to the Men's hockey are gone.
If the team was offering them that $21,000 plus housing, transportation, equipment etc, then that's probably pretty generous considering the marketability of the sport, I don't think that people are filling up 5000 seat arenas to watch them play.
Like I said, the US will eventually get tired of this, and either kill the team entirely and go back to recruiting college players to come out at the last possible minute and still win medals. Or they'll throw their arms up in the air and basically state that any player that boycotts the WC will lose their Olympic dream.
I don't even bat an eye at Olympic women's hockey. The product is not entertaining, and like you said, it is a one horse race every year with the 2nd horse sometimes coming close.
I'd much rather watch downhill, bobsled sports, speedskating, even curling during the Olympics. Regardless of the gender of the athlete. The athletes in all these sports struggle with the work/sport split, it's not unique to female hockey. To me it sounds like the female hockey players are placing themselves above all other sports in the Olympics.
an inherent problem with all sports is that the money gap between the elite league and sub-elite is huge, regardless of sex. So this gap will exist in any sport where both woman and men play.
A change in culture is the only thing that could alleviate this issue. Subsidising men's league to pay for women's is just wrong. Leagues are separate entities and should be treated as such. Once you go down this route other countries will complain that USA women have an unfair advantage.
I didn't follow it, and I didn't watch it, but what were the crowds like for the woman's pro league?
US Women's pro hockey league slashes salaries as attendance declines
Quote:
A person with direct knowledge of the decision told The Associated Press that player salaries were cut by 50 per cent, which represents as much as $540,000 in savings. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because Rylan declined to disclose any figures.
There were 463,000+ registered boys players and 69,000+ registered girl players in the US.
Thats 6.71 times more boys than girls playing Hockey in the states. So if they're spending 3.5 million on boys development then they should be spending around 521K on the girls programs.
They're arguing that there is no programs like the Boys Development Program for girls but guess what, $521,000 isn't going to pay for a program like that. That's life.
I would be shocked if they're not spending $521,000 more on supporting the Womens National Team year-round considering the Mens team is made up of millionaires that don't need USA Hockey money.
The longer this goes, the more this comes off as whining at this point. Like someone mentioned, there are dozens of sports that don't get much financial support due to lack of interest. You don't see them boycotting their world championships. Instead you see them fundraising in the community and looking for sponsorship. Maybe they should invest some of their time while they're sitting at home during the World Championship doing that.
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
The US Women's Hockey Team asks for money, and suddenly a bunch of Canadian men care and have a very important opinion on US women's hockey?
I personally don't care. If they feel they're being treated unfairly and want to boycott, more power to them.
If the US team disappears because of it, great, Canada wins all the medals by default. If the women get funding they feel is necessary to continue their involvement in the program, great, change was made.
How does anyone really care about the politics of another country's athletic program that has no impact on our own? Canada is nicely set up already.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
The US Women's Hockey Team asks for money, and suddenly a bunch of Canadian men care and have a very important opinion on US women's hockey?
I personally don't care. If they feel they're being treated unfairly and want to boycott, more power to them.
If the US team disappears because of it, great, Canada wins all the medals by default. If the women get funding they feel is necessary to continue their involvement in the program, great, change was made.
How does anyone really care about the politics of another country's athletic program that has no impact on our own? Canada is nicely set up already.
The same people that protested in Canada cities after the election of Trump?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
The US Women's Hockey Team asks for money, and suddenly a bunch of Canadian men care and have a very important opinion on US women's hockey?
I personally don't care. If they feel they're being treated unfairly and want to boycott, more power to them.
If the US team disappears because of it, great, Canada wins all the medals by default. If the women get funding they feel is necessary to continue their involvement in the program, great, change was made.
How does anyone really care about the politics of another country's athletic program that has no impact on our own? Canada is nicely set up already.
Athletes whining has me....
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
I don't think there's an issue with becoming interested in a topic or a debate once something prompts to the fore front of our minds, it's interesting to discuss and makes us think about what are our opinions and maybe makes us aware of some things we maybe let slip to the back ground.
If this debate was about wages for the National team, I was certainly less interested in the US Women's Team position, but this is about program funding I'm mildly intrigued. And the data around the amount of money spent on the Boys vs. the Girls, and then Polak's post on how many Boy's vs. Girls play was very interesting.
I will say in regards to Polak's post, I'm not sure you can simply do the math on the number of players and allocate appropriately (although I see the argument for that). There's likely a little bit of chicken and the egg argument or angle to be taken here. If you never invest more than what the ratio's dictate in the girls, will the game ever grow?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think 50/50 or equal funding is fair either when the number of boys that play is so much larger, but I think their needs to be more invested then just the amount the current ratios would suggest.
I realize the fence post if firmly planted up my butt on this issue with that straddling opinion, but it's actually how I feel.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
Canada, the world's other women's hockey powerhouse, puts more money into the sport in part because of government funding.
Hockey Canada general manager of women's programs Melody Davidson said development players receive $900 a month and senior-level players $1,500 a month even outside Olympic years and that players are supported full-time for nine months around the Olympics.
Of course it is hard to compare the USA situation and Canada's situation because hockey is more important in Canada and gets more relative funding from all sources.
Of course it is hard to compare the USA situation and Canada's situation because hockey is more important in Canada and gets more relative funding from all sources.
But Canadian players don't get housing, meal, and vehicle allowances do they? If they don't, how can it be a fair comparison to what Canadian players get if that isn't factored in?
If this debate was about wages for the National team, I was certainly less interested in the US Women's Team position, but this is about program funding I'm mildly intrigued. And the data around the amount of money spent on the Boys vs. the Girls, and then Polak's post on how many Boy's vs. Girls play was very interesting.
It partly is about wages. a previous post had a quote from a player who stated that as they are at the pinnacle of the sport they should be able to make a living playing it.
while I agree the grassroots needs more funding, I disagree that Hockey USA should be paying them a living wage to do nothing but play the game.
find a pro league to play in if you want to get paid, and don't overvalue what your sport means to everyone but yourself.
The Following User Says Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
yeah i think women's hockey hasn't developed the product enough to be self-sustainable.
All women's sports has had to battle this. It took years in tennis to get equal pay in grand slams. Soccer for it's world popularity abhorred women playing it until the 1999 World Cup. Still fighting for respectability. Canadian women curlers are the most elite in their but only recently the curling tour has gotten going. They still have full time jobs.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The US Women's Hockey Team asks for money, and suddenly a bunch of Canadian men care and have a very important opinion on US women's hockey?
I personally don't care. If they feel they're being treated unfairly and want to boycott, more power to them.
If the US team disappears because of it, great, Canada wins all the medals by default. If the women get funding they feel is necessary to continue their involvement in the program, great, change was made.
How does anyone really care about the politics of another country's athletic program that has no impact on our own? Canada is nicely set up already.
You took the time to come in here and tell everyone how much you don't care? Thanks for letting us know. It might interest you to know that not everyone on CP lives in Canada.
I think its an interesting topic, and speaks to issues like the purpose of amateur sports, the importance of winning vs. developing interest in the sport and how equality should be measured.
I respect how the players are using about the only tactic they have to draw attention to what they feel is an issue. If no one cares, then I guess they don't go.
But Canadian players don't get housing, meal, and vehicle allowances do they? If they don't, how can it be a fair comparison to what Canadian players get if that isn't factored in?
Well that is unclear... they say they get full time support for the 9 months leading up to the Olympics.
The Americans also didn't say if the US team gets housing, meal, and vehicle allowances in non-olympic years. And judging by the players' complaints they don't.
You took the time to come in here and tell everyone how much you don't care? Thanks for letting us know. It might interest you to know that not everyone on CP lives in Canada.
I think its an interesting topic, and speaks to issues like the purpose of amateur sports, the importance of winning vs. developing interest in the sport and how equality should be measured.
I respect how the players are using about the only tactic they have to draw attention to what they feel is an issue. If no one cares, then I guess they don't go.
I don't care about the outcome. The article and situation are both interesting. My point was having an quiet-outrage level of investment on what these women should or should not do seems odd to me, considering the extremely lopsided ratio of Canadians/Canadians living abroad to Americans on this forum (and non-high level athletes to those with Olympic experience).
I think only they can know what is "enough," and, as been suggested, their options are either to not play or accept what they have and move on.
In general, I find it pretty tasteless for people far removed from any situation to suggest someone shouldn't stand up for better treatment. The idea that they should just be happy with what they've got and stop talking about it, or don't play? Well, that's exactly what's happening, they spent years just being happy about it with their mouths closed, now it's not enough, so now they're not going to play.
I don't know. It's part and parcel with the dismissive-ness of athletes in general. I see this as just a logical carryover from the same types of people that constantly criticize athlete pay by dismissing their lifetime of work as "playing a game for kids" and that they should be pleased just to exist on a national stage, that it should be enough when they're committing all of their time to their profession, a lot more time than almost any one of us do. And if they don't? If they aren't committed 100% of the time? If someone catches them at the bar, or on vacation, it's rumour-this, rumour-that, "maybe if they spent more time practicing," take a cab instead of the team bus? it's "Johnny's got a partying-problem" etc. etc.
Sorry, rant over. The way we dismiss high level athletes bothers me a lot more than the outcome of this issue with the American team, and this thread is full of it, which is where my "how can you care?" response was directed.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 03-17-2017 at 11:11 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
