[News] NHL players will not participate in 2018 Olympics?

[flambers]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The NHL's business is hockey. Wouldn't it be great is some NHL teams became the marketing and money making monsters like Man U.

Professional soccer/rugby embrace the national/international teams.

NHL Owners have a major investment within their league not the Olympics (i.e. re-read the Flyers Owners view of the Olympics).

I would bet this is the last Olympics for quite some time.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

so some have the argument that the Olympics are for amateurs. So who are amateurs in hockey in the world? Anyone making any sort of income from playing sport is considered a professional? That would be the case for any nationally identified athlete who gets money from Sport Canada or Own the Podium?

So would AHL players or CHL or anyone playing in Europe who is Canadian would represent us at the Olympics? It just seems messy.

Not only that, but you can argue that most of the other athlete's in the Olympics aren't amateurs because they have sponsorship deals, So they are already making money off their sport.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flambers

NHL Owners have a major investment within their league not the Olympics (i.e. re-read the Flyers Owners view of the Olympics).

I would bet this is the last Olympics for quite some time.

The owners are short sighted then, IMO.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The owners are short sighted then, IMO.

NHL is a business which requires a profit, I would think there are owners that view the Olympics as a bad investment....

(i.e. if a Super Star Player sustains major injuries....)

[foshizzle11]

I get the whole NHL is a business argument, but really a couple of possible injuries to some star players is seriously a small sacrifice for the kind of competition that we get to see. Nothing beats it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flambers

NHL is a business which requires a profit, I would think there are owners that view the Olympics as a bad investment....

(i.e. if a Super Star Player sustains major injuries....)

Or you can look at it as a chance to market your players. If interest in the sport increases people will looked to the highest level they can find to watch/learn more.

If they don't like the Olympics, then start a World Cup. How are other sports, like soccer, able to get regular events that feature the best players in the world playing for their country? Aren't the owner's of Man U, et al, in the business of making profit?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Soccer's main event is the World Cup, far and away, Olympics are but an after thought. My point was that professional soccer teams know they are in the business of growing Soccer, not just "their business".


Seven's is an Olympic sport. Fifteens will never been an Olympic sport. That being said every year professional rugby in both the North and South are disrupted by yearly tourneys (6 Nations and Rugby Championship). Those professional teams are still expected to play their league games minus their players that are playing on the national team. They do this, amongst other reasons, because it grows Rugby, not just "their business".

The problem is the limiting structure of the IOC and the restrictions they place on everything.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Or you can look at it as a chance to market your players. If interest in the sport increases people will looked to the highest level they can find to watch/learn more.

If they don't like the Olympics, then start a World Cup. How are other sports, like soccer, able to get regular events that feature the best players in the world playing for their country? Aren't the owner's of Man U, et al, in the business of making profit?

Hockey is not a true "Global" sport (i.e. like Soccer) I doubt the Olympics will help market the league at all especially out of North America.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

The problem is the limiting structure of the IOC and the restrictions they place on everything.

Oh I get the IOC are not easy, but I was wondering on a bigger picture why Hockey globally can't get their #### together to have an annual national tourney.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The owners are short sighted then, IMO.

How so?

Because they lose profits for 2 weeks of the season right when the NFL season ends?

That they risk their best players to injury and maybe even career ending injuries

That when you think of it, NHL is mostly NA and that really it doesn't really market the NHL or increase it's brand.

The olympics don't benefit the NHL, it doesn't increase interest in the NHL across the world, as it has been said - NHL is not a global sport like soccer

Owners just lose out on money for 2 weeks

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I get the whole NHL is a business argument, but really a couple of possible injuries to some star players is seriously a small sacrifice for the kind of competition that we get to see. Nothing beats it.

Where's the benefit to the owners other than the risks they face? Yes it's a great competition for us to watch, for all current (and will continue) nhl fans... but there is nothing the NHL gains from the olympics

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flambers

Hockey is not a true "Global" sport (i.e. like Soccer) I doubt the Olympics will help market the league at all especially out of North America.

Could we move past just the Olympics as a show case?

If Hockey doesn't try to showcase the best thing about the sport, skill/speed/size via a Nation on Nation tourney with the best players from each country playing it will never grow...IMO

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That's not the NHL's mandate though. The NHL's mandate is to grow its own business.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The NHL's business is hockey. Wouldn't it be great is some NHL teams became the marketing and money making monsters like Man U.

Professional soccer/rugby embrace the national/international teams.

There's a big difference. soccer and rugby national teams play for money and that money gets funnelled down through the system, the Canadian Olympic hockey team plays for nothing and the NHL and IIHF/IOC have nothing to do with each other.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

How so?

Because they lose profits for 2 weeks of the season right when the NFL season ends?

That they risk their best players to injury and maybe even career ending injuries

That when you think of it, NHL is mostly NA and that really it doesn't really market the NHL or increase it's brand.

The olympics don't benefit the NHL, it doesn't increase interest in the NHL across the world, as it has been said - NHL is not a global sport like soccer

Owners just lose out on money for 2 weeks



Where's the benefit to the owners other than the risks they face? Yes it's a great competition for us to watch, for all current (and will continue) nhl fans... but there is nothing the NHL gains from the olympics

I think we can all agree that the NHL is the top league in the world. Correct?

Exposing the cream of you league via a World Cup, Canada Cup, Olympics will only increase interest in you brand, NHL. People will get exposed to the good things the sport has to offer, and hopefully will source avenues to watch the sport between the WC, CC, WO.

Maybe I am wrong. No offence but using this excuse:

NHL is not a global sport like soccer

will not increase the game, and isn't the point of every company to increase profits?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Could we move past just the Olympics as a show case?

If Hockey doesn't try to showcase the best thing about the sport, skill/speed/size via a Nation on Nation tourney with the best players from each country playing it will never grow...IMO

Yup.. it's very hard to start a tournament. When the World Cup started in 1930 people thought it was a dumb idea. We already have the 1924 and 1928 Olympics, why create this? When the European Cup (now Champions League) was created people thought it was a dumb idea until Real Madrid put on a show and won the first 5 installments. More recently people are saying the World Baseball Classic is a dumb idea. But it will grow baseball.

Which is why it was a shame that hockey had something good like the Canada Cup (later World Cup) and then just turfed it for no reason.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There's a big difference. soccer and rugby national teams play for money and that money gets funnelled down through the system, the Canadian Olympic hockey team plays for nothing and the NHL and IIHF/IOC have nothing to do with each other.

Are you telling me that in 2004 World Cup the players got no $ for playing?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Are you telling me that in 2004 World Cup the players got no $ for playing?

I said Canadian Olympic hockey.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Oh I get the IOC are not easy, but I was wondering on a bigger picture why Hockey globally can't get their #### together to have an annual national tourney.

Quality. Look at hockey, right now its a small batch of competition. You've got Canada/USA/Russia/Sweden as your front runners, the Finns come and go and when the Czechs arent too busy separating from the Slovaks they're two good teams, but you really cant mount a tournament of the same type that soccer has in the World Cup and the Euros.

No one is travelling to a tournament to watch their national team get bent over 7-0 a few times. They're sure as hell not crossing the Atlantic to watch that.

The drop-off in quality from the big teams means that any 'stand-alone' tournament would be pretty pathetic. The Olympics is actually a great place for top-end hockey, the IOC just have to surrender the reins a little bit.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I said Canadian Olympic hockey.

Sorry.

Do you know if the player got paid at the World Cup in 2004?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry.

Do you know if the player got paid at the World Cup in 2004?

Team Canada got 1 million for winning, don't know how they divided it.

which is peanuts right? You can call FIFA crooks if you want but this summer's World Cup total prize money is $576 million dollars.

The 32 teams at this year's World Cup finals will share a total fund of $576 million, including a prize-money pot of $358m with the winners taking home $35m.

The runners-up in Brazil will pocket $25m, while the third-placed team will take home $22m and the fourth-placed team $20m. The four teams eliminated in the quarter-finals will leave with $14m; teams in the last 16 will receive $9m; and those eliminated in the first round will get $8m.

In addition, each of the 32 finalists will receive $1.5m for their "preparation costs".

There will also be awards of $70m for the clubs whose players are taking part in the World Cup and, in addition to that, $20m will be given as a legacy to Brazilian football.

The grand total of $576m includes a figure of $100m available as insurance for players injured while playing for their national teams, known as the club protection programme.

This is why soccer works and hockey doesn't

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

Quality. Look at hockey, right now its a small batch of competition. You've got Canada/USA/Russia/Sweden as your front runners, the Finns come and go and when the Czechs arent too busy separating from the Slovaks they're two good teams, but you really cant mount a tournament of the same type that soccer has in the World Cup and the Euros.

No one is travelling to a tournament to watch their national team get bent over 7-0 a few times. They're sure as hell not crossing the Atlantic to watch that.

The drop-off in quality from the big teams means that any 'stand-alone' tournament would be pretty pathetic. The Olympics is actually a great place for top-end hockey, the IOC just have to surrender the reins a little bit.

There has only been 8 differnt world cup winners since 1930 (for soccer) but I do get you point. It is an issue that rugby currently faces with their world cup. However teams/nations do get better, but it takes time and a long term vision.

You seems to be of the same opinion as me, which is an annual tourney would be great for the game.