[News] IOC and IIHF make big Olympic concessions

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Didn't the PA have the opportunity to get this concession in exchange for the extension? Or was it for an extension beyond 2022?

Not as far as I recall. Those were separate conversations. The NHL and the NHLPA have been in ongoing discussions about a new CBA, which I think the NHL is pushing to include Olympic participation as a negotiating chip. I don't believe there was any decision for the PA beyond whether extend or not extend the current deal, which they did so as a good-faith demonstration to keep talks moving forward.

In any event, Locke's question was pertaining to why the NHLPA did not feel Olympic participation should be included in CBA negotiations, and their reason is because the current deal is still in place beyond 2022. I tend to think the NHL will continue to leverage future Olympic participation as a bargaining chip in negotiating the next deal whether the PA likes it or not. It will be interesting to see this play out, since I believe that under the current deal if the NHL manages to secure any revenue or compensation from the IOC in exchange for their participation in the 2022 Olympics, those monies will not be included in HRR. But there is a big carrot the League can dangle here for the PA by negotiating future revenues into the players share for the next CBA.

[powderjunkie]

https://www.nhlpa.com/news/1-11975/n...-cba-extension

Looks like it was for the 2018 Olympics for a CBA extension to 2025. Presumably Beijing 2022 would have been included, too (because the league wants to be in China, assuming it isn't overcome by the Wuhan).

This could also be read as an indication that the league isn't that opposed to the Olympics, but they obviously want some return on the deal (whether it's directly from the IOC or not)

[FlamingHabs Fan]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

[URL="https://www.nhlpa.com/news/1-11975/nhlpa-rejects-nhls-offer-of-olympics-for-cba-extension"]
This could also be read as an indication that the league isn't that opposed to the Olympics, but they obviously want some return on the deal (whether it's directly from the IOC or not)

That has always been the leagues position.
They want their cut if THEIR players are going to there.

[pseudoreality]

It's funny. Initially (in 1998), the NHL wanted to go to the Olympics and they had to negotiate with the NHLPA to go. Now, it's the opposite. The players want to go and the league doesn't see the benefit. So the NHL wants to use it as a bargaining chip to get concessions from the players.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

It's funny. Initially (in 1998), the NHL wanted to go to the Olympics and they had to negotiate with the NHLPA to go. Now, it's the opposite. The players want to go and the league doesn't see the benefit. So the NHL wants to use it as a bargaining chip to get concessions from the players.

What benefit?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

The only other major league I can think of that has players attend the Olympics, is the NBA. The difference, between the two is the scheduling concession the NHL must accommodate vs the NBA.


To add fuel to the NHL’s momentum are the changes to IOC rule 40.

Quite a few sports are organized into some kind of an ongoing top level competition.

Also, there's no obvious reason why having a league should make a difference in who deserves a cut of the profits and who doesn't.

What the NHL has is unusual leverage, and that's why the IOC is willing to at least negotiate. But leverage isn't the same as what's fair.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What benefit?

Attracting hockey fans worldwide.

How much money has the NBA made in China? I’m not saying the Olympics are the only way to do that, but it is significant exposure for NHL players and therefore the league. There are a whole lot of people living in other parts of the world.

To me it’s seems too many in the league don’t have the confidence in the game itself to believe that kind of exposure can lead to good things.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Attracting hockey fans worldwide.



How much money has the NBA made in China? I’m not saying the Olympics are the only way to do that, but it is significant exposure for NHL players and therefore the league. There are a whole lot of people living in other parts of the world.



To me it’s seems too many in the league don’t have the confidence in the game itself to believe that kind of exposure can lead to good things.

I think if this were true, or that if the League believed that Olympic exposure on it's own were worth anything close to what you speculate, then they would be a MUCH more enthusiastic participant.

After 20 years and five Olympic games it strikes me as obvious that exposure is most definitely not all that.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think if this were true, or that if the League believed that Olympic exposure on It's own were worth anything close to what you speculate, then they would be a MUCH more enthusiastic participant.

After 20 years and five Olympic games it strikes me as obvious that exposure is most definitely not all that.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

You don’t see exposure to the game at its highest level as critical to growing it?
It’s obvious the NHL cares because they play pre season games in China. If people start loving hockey then they will start following the NHL.

You asked what benefit there was to the NHL participating in the Olympics. How are you concluding the Olympics doesn’t help with this? Or are we just concluding the NHL should never be questioned?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You don’t see exposure to the game at its highest level as critical to growing it?
It’s obvious the NHL cares because they play pre season games in China. If people start loving hockey then they will start following the NHL.

You asked what benefit there was to the NHL participating in the Olympics. How are you concluding the Olympics doesn’t help with this? Or are we just concluding the NHL should never be questioned?

It's not a question of whether there is no value. It's a question of whether there is enough value.

There are scheduling issues, injury issues, etc. It isn't 'free' for the NHL to just pack up the league and take a break, it has to be worth the effort. And seeing as how they went for a while but now don't, it seems reasonable to conclude that they didn't deem the value to be worthwhile.

Also, the players are the league's product. Just giving them over to the Olympics for a couple weeks is bad business. You don't give away what you can sell.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You don’t see exposure to the game at its highest level as critical to growing it?

It’s obvious the NHL cares because they play pre season games in China. If people start loving hockey then they will start following the NHL.



You asked what benefit there was to the NHL participating in the Olympics. How are you concluding the Olympics doesn’t help with this? Or are we just concluding the NHL should never be questioned?

Like I said, exposure is not worth enough to the NHL for them to happily continue sending their players to the Games every four years without further compensation. I was responding to the implication that the League was somehow ignoring this benefit.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[getbak]

This is the kind of success the NHL was anticipating they'd see after Olympic participation: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...bal-nba-fandom

If that sort of global success had materialized after Nagano, the league probably wouldn't care if they could put Olympic highlights on their website. Hockey didn't catch on the same way that basketball did after Barcelona, and it most-likely never will for a variety of reasons (cost and weather being two of the biggest factors).


The differences between 1998 and today are that back then the owners looked at the NBA and the impact of the Dream Team and thought they could get their own piece of the international pie. After attending 5 Olympics, they know that Golden Goose doesn't exist (although, they still hope for something to materialize in China), so if they are going to shut down for three weeks in the middle of the season (something the NBA doesn't need to do for the Olympics), there needs to be something tangible in it for them. Being able to use Olympic content to promote the NHL would be a big deal. The fact that the IOC is willing to move on that is massive.

From the players' perspective, in 1998, most of the players had grown up during the Cold War and events like the Summit Series (about a third of the players in the NHL in 1998 would have been old enough to remember that) and Canada Cups were considered the ultimate in international hockey -- with NHL rules and referees. International hockey tournaments were pretty bad back then, with bad ice, big ice, and biased or just poor referees. Today, the vast majority of players likely have no memory of the pre-NHL Olympic tournaments, and for them, it's the World Cups that are poor quality tournaments.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Like I said, exposure is not worth enough to the NHL for them to happily continue sending their players to the Games every four years without further compensation. I was responding to the implication that the League was somehow ignoring this benefit.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Well your exact quote was “What benefit?” when responding to a poster who said the league doesn’t see the benefit. Which doesn’t imply you’re trying to measure the benefit but rather doubting whether there is any at all.

I don’t have enough data to measure it but it strikes me as an extremely low price to pay for that kind of exposure. The only thing the league really loses is the All Star game which is more of a perk for league sponsors.

IMO the World Cup and the Olympics have contributed immensely to the growth of soccer and basketball, much to the benefit of individual leagues and clubs.

[getbak]

Here's the segment from last night: https://www.sportsnet.ca/videos/hock...-participation


If I'm understanding what they're saying, it sounds like the league wants to tie participation in Beijing with the negotiations for a CBA extension. Since the current CBA already extends to the end of the 2021-22 season and already has clauses about Olympic participation in it, the PA doesn't think the discussions should be linked.

I can understand the league's position if it's along the lines of they don't want to go to Beijing without a CBA extension in place because they don't want to gain momentum from the Olympics only to have another lockout 6 months later. It's a good bargaining chip for the league to hold. Say no to Olympic participation in the final year of a CBA term and it forces the PA back to the table with some urgency rather than waiting until there's an actual work stoppage, which has always been the leverage the PA has used.



One way or the other, if the IOC and IIHF are willing to make these concessions (and they're real concessions without a bunch of clauses), I can't see the league or players letting the CBA negotiations get in the way. It's just a question of who will blink first.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's hard. Especially in February when nothing is going on in the southern markets. It's such a big deal no other sport does this.

When you say no other sport, which are you referring to? Football is not in the Olympics. Baseball hasn’t been regularly. Soccer is U23 and all major leagues allow their players to play for their national team throughout the year don’t they?

So the NBA doesn’t have to close, this is true.

But this sacrifice isn’t what it’s made out to be IMO. The Southern markets have sports throughout the year, particularly basketball in February so I don’t see their unique concern. Not picking on you, just voicing my personal frustration for what I see as the NHL’s shortsightedness.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FlamingHabs Fan

That has always been the leagues position.
They want their cut if THEIR players are going to there.

Of course they want it, but they've let them go five times without a particularly great deal, and were prepared to let them go again in exchange for 5 years of operating certainty (i.e. nothing additional from the IOC).

[Scroopy Noopers]

Hockey isn’t the same! You can’t compare growth of hockey in other countries in the same conversation as growth of games that need a ball... and that’s it.

Places aren’t just popping up huge refrigerated buildings for a sport when they have 3 other hugely popular sports that can be played with items you can pick up in the forest. You can’t just grow hockey with exposure.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by getbak

If that sort of global success had materialized after Nagano, the league probably wouldn't care if they could put Olympic highlights on their website. Hockey didn't catch on the same way that basketball did after Barcelona, and it most-likely never will for a variety of reasons (cost and weather being two of the biggest factors).

Well they have cold weather in China.

Hockey is also a bit different than basketball where you actually have to develop players rather than just dig up some 7+ foot tall genetic freak that can run 200 feet without falling over and be able to stick their hands in the air.

In the past couple of decades though we have started to see an influx of players from non traditional European countries. At the top of the list are guys like Draisaitl and Kopitar. Denmark is producing a few players. Starting to see some potential prospects from Japan.

It's not going to happen overnight, as countries need to invest in facilities for hockey unlike other sports, but the sport is growing world wide.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You don’t see exposure to the game at its highest level as critical to growing it?
It’s obvious the NHL cares because they play pre season games in China. If people start loving hockey then they will start following the NHL.

You asked what benefit there was to the NHL participating in the Olympics. How are you concluding the Olympics doesn’t help with this? Or are we just concluding the NHL should never be questioned?

It isn't the NHL job to grow the game. It also isn't their job to make the IOC and IIHF any money.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FlamingHabs Fan

That has always been the leagues position.
They want their cut if THEIR players are going to there.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

It isn't the NHL job to grow the game.

wut? That's pretty much their only job...(growing it in the US most importantly)

Despite good teams in '02 and '10, I don't recall the US team particularly captivating the nation, though maybe winning gold would have helped?

A US team could be even better right now. That hope isn't enough to justify going to the olympics on a bad deal, but it's certainly part of the calculus of trying to get a better deal.