[Flashpoint]

I would be pretty damned pissed if the Flames decided to play a game overseas somewhere that was unstable and something happened to one (or more) of our players.

I can only imagine that management would look at it with a far more critical eye than the typical fanboy (such as myself). So the question is - what would provide the impetus for a team to participate at a location that was unsafe for the players? You would have to think it would either be providing a huge profit margin (with associated guarantees of safety) or a league mandate with stiff non compliance penalties.

Why risk your business if there isn't any reward? For example - I'm sure a Pakistan vs India cricket match is going to generate far more revenue in the far east (is India / Pakistanpart of the far east?) than it would in Toronto - hence, incentive for the games remaining there despite the problems.

From a more philosophical nature - it's basically similar to the question of sanctions, and when they should be applied. Does the international community (or in this case the sporting world) attempt to punish a nation or region by withholding sporting events (in the hopes of improving behaviour that may or may not be under the control of the local government), or do they take a opposite approach and attempt to provide "support" to a struggling country by having games played there despite problems?

My thinking is the bigger the sporting industry, the less likely they are to take risks. The NHL will probably never play exhibition hockey in Mongolia (not due to any instability, simply a lack of facilities. Travel teams (see Dave Bidini's "Tropic of Hockey") do go there. When your sport generates hundreds of millions of dollars, why would you risk even a small element (like a single player) by going to unstable regions?

Just my 2...errr... 10 cents.