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

[sureLoss]

Interesting development in Women's hockey:



http://www.foxsports.com/nhl/story/u...dispute-031517

[Ashasx]

I'm a little confused with this. Is USA Hockey not paying for their travel, equipment, etc.?

Or do they want to be paid like the men?

[The Professor]

Hell yeah! Good for them.

[habernac]

http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/art...ort-women-team

"Out of a four-year cycle, USA Hockey pays for only six months out of an entire four years. They pay us $1,000 per month in those six months. So, for the other 42 months we don't get paid at all by USA Hockey," says Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson, a two-time Olympic silver medalist. "It is a full-time job and to not get paid is a financial burden and stress on the players, obviously. That is the conversation my husband and I are having right now. Is playing going to be more stress than we can handle? Sadly it becomes a decision between chasing your dream or giving in to the reality of the financial burden."

[PlayfulGenius]

So they have a full-time men's team, like Canada used to have?

What're the comparables they're looking at for equitable wages?

[CroFlames]

The way I understood it was that the men do NOT get paid, but all their expenses are obviously paid while traveling for the national teams.

[CaptainCrunch]

I thought that the Canadian woman got some pay, but also had sponsors.

Isn't that why most of them work at Home Hardware?

If the American woman don't show up at the WC, then they might as well shut it down. There's such a large gap between the American and Canadian woman's teams and the rest of the world that its pretty irrelevant and the game really isn't developing all that well. its basically a tournament that features Mike Tyson and a clone of Mike Tyson beating up babies.

[polak]

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.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by PlayfulGenius

So they have a full-time men's team, like Canada used to have?

What're the comparables they're looking at for equitable wages?

Their comparable are how the men's team is treated. And their argument is that USA Hockey is ignoring American laws that mandate equal treatment.

[GirlySports]

where is the IIHF in all this?

It amazes me how money doesn't funnel down from the top in world hockey like it does in other sports.

[RyZ]

How much revenue does the Womans team bring into the US National Hockey Program?

I would think their travel expenses, equipment, meals etc would have to be paid for, but if they are looking for paycheques, Im not sure that this is going to go well for them.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Their comparable are how the men's team is treated. And their argument is that USA Hockey is ignoring American laws that mandate equal treatment.

OK but I don't get it. They have the national development team, but they don't have a national men's team, do they?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by habernac

http://www.espn.com/espnw/voices/art...ort-women-team

"Out of a four-year cycle, USA Hockey pays for only six months out of an entire four years. They pay us $1,000 per month in those six months. So, for the other 42 months we don't get paid at all by USA Hockey," says Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson, a two-time Olympic silver medalist. "It is a full-time job and to not get paid is a financial burden and stress on the players, obviously. That is the conversation my husband and I are having right now. Is playing going to be more stress than we can handle? Sadly it becomes a decision between chasing your dream or giving in to the reality of the financial burden."

I guess the question is, how long out of that four-year cycle are they dedicating to the national team? She says it's a full-time job, but is hockey the full-time job, or is USA hockey the full-time job?

Whatever the deal is, they should be paid the same as men doing a comparable thing (which obviously isn't the men's national hockey team).

Maybe that's the men's national soccer team? There has been a similar argument in soccer I believe about equal pay.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by polak

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.

No it's not.
I would bet that there are almost no amateur sports federations where the teams/athletes are making money/turning a profit for the federation. Sure men's hockey might, but that's not really relevant.

If the mandate of the federation is to grow the game and to produce top level talent then turning a profit off of a team shouldn't be a deciding factor on how much financial support they give the respective teams.

I have no idea what kind of compensation the men's team gets (if any), but that should be the baseline, not how profitable the team is.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No it's not.
I would bet that there are almost no amateur sports federations where the teams/athletes are making money/turning a profit for the federation. Sure men's hockey might, but that's not really relevant.

If the mandate of the federation is to grow the game and to produce top level talent then turning a profit off of a team shouldn't be a deciding factor on how much financial support they give the respective teams.

I have no idea what kind of compensation the men's team gets (if any), but that should be the baseline, not how profitable the team is.

How can you ask for more money if there's no more money?

Especially since its doubtful that USA Hockey pays the mens teams any wages seeing as they're all NHL'ers.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by polak

How can you ask for more money if there's no more money?

Especially since its doubtful that USA Hockey pays the mens teams any wages seeing as they're all NHL'ers.

I'm guessing US Hockey is doing just fine.
Again the question shouldn't be about who brings in more revenue. If that is the argument that US Hockey uses, then they are likely contradicting their mandate, which I'm sure is based on growing the game and producing top level talent.

The best athletes/teams are always going to bring in more attention/money and that's the point. You use the money generated from those top tiers to develop the lower tiers.

I'll concede that if the men's team doesn't make any money then yeah, the argument is a little weak as it boils down to "Being a top tier athlete is hard and causes financial burdens".
Every speed skater, cross country skier, and a whole host of others have to deal with that. But if the US team is treating the men and women differently then they really do have a strong point.

If they truly want to use the fact that the men make more money, and therefore deserve more attention/support then they really should change their motto to "Get Money, F*** B******".

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by polak

How can you ask for more money if there's no more money?

Especially since its doubtful that USA Hockey pays the mens teams any wages seeing as they're all NHL'ers.

There are two issues here. The IIHF makes money from tournaments and sponsors and funnels it down to the federations that qualified. Is this true? Also IIHF will have another fund that send money to lower members like a Taiwan to develop hockey. Is this true?

If true, then is the USA Hockey dividing that properly to sustain it's womens program?

Think of it like a non-profit organization.

[sureLoss]

Travis Hughes @TravisSBN
The US women are paid just $6,000 every four years, according to @JocelyneUSA17.

Travis Hughes @TravisSBN
For context: if you make more than ~$34,500 per year, you make more than USA Hockey allegedly pays all ~20-23 USWNT Olympians combined.

[ComixZone]

There has to be some math behind why they're demanding more. The revenue has to be there for this team to be making this type of demand, right? So they should get their share.

...if their games don't generate the revenue though, then they have little ground to stand on.

[polak]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Travis Hughes @TravisSBN
For context: if you make more than ~$34,500 per year, you make more than USA Hockey allegedly pays all ~20-23 USWNT Olympians combined.

For context: if you make $0.01 per year playing hockey, you make more than almost anyone in the world does for playing a game.