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

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

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.



This is why soccer works and hockey doesn't

Agreed, the needs to be compensation to the clubs that release the players and produce the players.

[GirlySports]

sorry I kept editing and cutting a pasting the soccer article.

The main points are that for the FIFA World Cup.

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.

[Enoch Root]

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

They don't 'lose out', it is simply delayed for two weeks.

The two weeks in February can be argued to be more attractive than early April, but 1) that is marginal at best, and 2) it is once every 4 years.

The growth of the game is likely far greater than any marginal cost of delaying the season for a couple weeks (for HUGE exposure)

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

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.

We're on the same page except for one small issue: I disagree completely with the concept of an annual tournament for hockey.

It just cant happen unless the NHL schedule gets drastically reduced.

That being said, in my experience as a fan of Hockey/Soccer/Rugby I can say that a tournament held every 4 years is borderline fataing genius. Hockey should tell the Olympics to pound sand and hold their own best-of-the-best tournament, or Kumite, every 4 years.

Its not that easy though, the owners would need a huge bone thrown their way because the one thing the Olympics has going for it is prestige. Without prestige all you've got is the World Championships.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

We're on the same page except for one small issue: I disagree completely with the concept of an annual tournament for hockey.

It just cant happen unless the NHL schedule gets drastically reduced.

That being said, in my experience as a fan of Hockey/Soccer/Rugby I can say that a tournament held every 4 years is borderline fataing genius. Hockey should tell the Olympics to pound sand and hold their own best-of-the-best tournament, or Kumite, every 4 years.

Its not that easy though, the owners would need a huge bone thrown their way because the one thing the Olympics has going for it is prestige. Without prestige all you've got is the World Championships.

Sorry my use of the word "annual" was generic, liberal and completely unrelated to the correct use of the word. I mean a tourney held regularly, every year, every second/third/fourth year. So looks like we do agree.

[CliffFletcher]

I don't think the NHL owners dislike the idea of a best-against-best international tournament every four years. They just don't like it in the middle of the season, and completely outside their control. I'm confident that the NHL would be on-side with a revived World Cup of 6-8 teams, every four years. The quality of hockey would be just as good as the Olympics.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't think the NHL owners dislike the idea of a best-against-best international tournament every four years. They just don't like it in the middle of the season, and completely outside their control. I'm confident that the NHL would be on-side with a revived World Cup of 6-8 teams, every four years. The quality of hockey would be just as good as the Olympics.

Or better.

[Itse]

Tradition is important in sports. Pretty much all the biggest sporting events in the world have long traditions going for them, and many have only become big after they've become traditional.

The Super Bowl is a good example. Now it's an international megaspectacle which is starting to be impossible to miss even in a country like Finland where we don't really play American football. 20 years ago, not the case.

Hockey could really benefit from having a traditional best of the best trophy that's settled in one final game that everybody can watch. (That's one of the reasons why the Stanley Cup will never reach the same international status. One game is okay even if it's in the middle of the night, but a whole series is too much.)

Olympics, World Cup, doesn't really matter, but they should pick one and stick with it for at least 50 years or so. Then maybe see if something needs to be changed.

Damned Americans, always so impatient.


EDIT: Just noticed that Zetterberg could be done for this tournament. If true, damnations. Only Canada, US and Russia really have the kind of depth to field a strong team pretty much regardless of anything. Now that both Sweden and Finland are missing both it's #1 and #2 centers (I assume, Sweden with Zetterberg and Sedin and Finland with Koivu and Filppula), this tournament is starting to take a big hit in excitement level. (Especially since the Czech team seems to have crippled itself with internal politics.)

Also brings to mind that yeah, maybe hockey would be better served with a tournament that was not held in the middle of the season. After all, you want the lineups to really be the best possible, if we're really talking about the best of the best.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They don't 'lose out', it is simply delayed for two weeks.

The two weeks in February can be argued to be more attractive than early April, but 1) that is marginal at best, and 2) it is once every 4 years.

The growth of the game is likely far greater than any marginal cost of delaying the season for a couple weeks (for HUGE exposure)

Here's the rub: One of the mandates Bettman was given upon being hired was to complete an agreement to get into the Olympics. We know this was a league goal nearly 25 years ago and the governors felt it would improve their business. However, it was well known during the negotiations with the NHLPA and IIHF to get into the Sochi games that the league does not feel it benefited enough to justify it any longer. And this is despite the fact that we got two dream gold medal match-ups of Canada vs. the US on North American soil.

Clearly, the "growth of the game" has not met expectations.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Itse

Tradition is important in sports. Pretty much all the biggest sporting events in the world have long traditions going for them, and many have only become big after they've become traditional.

The Super Bowl is a good example. Now it's an international megaspectacle which is starting to be impossible to miss even in a country like Finland where we don't really play American football. 20 years ago, not the case.

Hockey could really benefit from having a traditional best of the best trophy that's settled in one final game that everybody can watch. (That's one of the reasons why the Stanley Cup will never reach the same international status. One game is okay even if it's in the middle of the night, but a whole series is too much.)

Olympics, World Cup, doesn't really matter, but they should pick one and stick with it for at least 50 years or so. Then maybe see if something needs to be changed.

Damned Americans, always so impatient.

yup they had one. It was in the fall with training camps. And the final was best of 3. They threw it away.

[Alberta_Beef]

I still believe that all the owners want in regards to the Olympics is rights to use footage.

A good example of how this would benefit them is through the NHL app on our phones. The NHL realizes that just because their league has suspended play for a couple of weeks, it doesn't mean their fan base doesn't still want information. So the NHL is continuing to give their fans info.

What the league wants is the right to provide video footage with this info. So when they send out the alert saying Zetterberg has been shut down the remainder of the games they can include relevant video footage.

I for one feel this is not too much too ask.

Also I think NHL players in the Olympics is very beneficial for the Olympics as it helps them promote hockey as their premiere winter event. People like to say its good for the NHL, but I'm not sure sure the league benefits anymore than the games themselves.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Here's the rub: One of the mandates Bettman was given upon being hired was to complete an agreement to get into the Olympics. We know this was a league goal nearly 25 years ago and the governors felt it would improve their business. However, it was well known during the negotiations with the NHLPA and IIHF to get into the Sochi games that the league does not feel it benefited enough to justify it any longer. And this is despite the fact that we got two dream gold medal match-ups of Canada vs. the US on North American soil.

Clearly, the "growth of the game" has not met expectations.

Your conclusion does not follow from that - how many different states had at least one player drafted last year? (or was it the year before?)

More likely that it is a revenue issue.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Clearly, the "growth of the game" has not met expectations.

Yep. I believe this argument has been put to rest now as the last two North American Winter Games have proven to bring minimal growth if any at all. Hell Americans would rather watch the Walking Dead over any Winter Olympics in general.

I was maybe not 100% in favor of the NHL pulling out before but as of now I am after watching TSN sportsdesk spend the entire opening on hockey and not other sports and while the Olympics are going on listen to local 960 radio spend the entire morning so far discuss who's sitting for today's game and "should we be concerned about yesterday's effort" and not a peep about the other athletes and events going on.

I'm just feeling like the Canadian broadcasters have turned to HNIC with a little Olympics sprinkled in to kill time between hockey games and to me that's not fair to the athletes that train for four years to have their day on the center stage be shuffled into the background so we can see another Sidney Crosby interview and Pierre Lebrun reporting on what the players ate for breakfast that morning.

It all plays to me like this as far as the TSN goes; "How about that Jamie Benn! Boy did he play great for only 8 minutes of ice time and what about Patrick Marleau on the big ice!! Oh yea and Patrick Chan is in contention for silver/gold in men's figure skating..but how about that Jamie Benn!"

[Resolute 14]

Well, to be more accurate, the growth of the game (again, more accurately: the league) as a result of the Olympics has not met the league's expectations. And yes, that is a revenue issue.

The number of US states that has seen a player drafted in recent years is far more likely a function of Wayne Gretzky playing for the Kings and the southern expansion that allowed than anything the Olympics did.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yep. I believe this argument has been put to rest now as the last two North American Winter Games have proven to bring minimal growth if any at all. Hell Americans would rather watch the Walking Dead over any Winter Olympics in general.

I was maybe not 100% in favor of the NHL pulling out before but as of now I am after watching TSN sportsdesk spend the entire opening on hockey and not other sports and while the Olympics are going on listen to local 960 radio spend the entire morning so far discuss who's sitting for today's game and "should we be concerned about yesterday's effort" and not a peep about the other athletes and events going on.

I'm just feeling like the Canadian broadcasters have turned to HNIC with a little Olympics sprinkled in to kill time between hockey games and to me that's not fair to the athletes that train for four years to have their day on the center stage be shuffled into the background so we can see another Sidney Crosby interview and Pierre Lebrun reporting on what the players ate for breakfast that morning.

It all plays to me like this as far as the TSN goes; "How about that Jamie Benn! Boy did he play great for only 8 minutes of ice time and what about Patrick Marleau on the big ice!! Oh yea and Patrick Chan is in contention for silver/gold in men's figure skating..but how about that Jamie Benn!"

This is what bugs me about NHL participation in the Olympics. For the non-hockey athletes, this is the only time in four years that their sport gets any kind of media exposure. And the Canadian media obsession with pro hockey means that the non-hockey sports and athletes get shunted aside with yet more obsessively-detailed analysis of NHL players.

Given the popularity and massive money involved in NHL hockey, I can't get myself worked up too much about the prospect of hockey losing a bit of media exposure if the NHL pulls out of the Olympics, while dozens of winter sports and hundreds of Canadian athletes get a tiny fraction of the attention and support. Let those athletes have their two weeks in the sun every four years. NHL players bask in adulation 40 weeks a year every year.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Here's the rub: One of the mandates Bettman was given upon being hired was to complete an agreement to get into the Olympics. We know this was a league goal nearly 25 years ago and the governors felt it would improve their business. However, it was well known during the negotiations with the NHLPA and IIHF to get into the Sochi games that the league does not feel it benefited enough to justify it any longer. And this is despite the fact that we got two dream gold medal match-ups of Canada vs. the US on North American soil.

Clearly, the "growth of the game" has not met expectations.

They are negotiating and trying to get their terms met. So they gripe and moan about things. They can't say 'oh frig the Olympics are great and we love everything about it' and then expect the IOC to give up anything.

It is a textbook ownership/league move. Complain about things to improve your deals. Its worked with the players and it will probably work with IOC.

[PeteMoss]

Also need to consider the KHL factor in this. The NHL clearly values the European market given they have teams over there to start every season. The KHL is expanding to Finland next year and have talked with teams throughout Europe. If KHL players are allowed to represent their countries, you could see situations where a player goes to the KHL for a year to play at home and represent their country.

Alternatively the KHL players could become better known in those countries if they participate and that league could grow in Europe which would be trouble for the NHL.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, to be more accurate, the growth of the game (again, more accurately: the league) as a result of the Olympics has not met the league's expectations. And yes, that is a revenue issue.

Or, you could say that the the hockey owners had unrealistic expectations, they lack patience and don't really understand sports traditions.

Which I think are all things that are pretty much confirmed by the way hockey as is generally being run. International tournaments change formats every few years, nobody is interested in finding a unified rule set for all hockey and rules are constantly meddled with.

Also, when ever there's a good thing discovered, the owners start instantly milking them for short term profit instead of building them up as unique, must-see things in their own. Outdoor games are a great example. I really don't care about them anymore, and wouldn't specifically tune in to watch one.

This is one area where soccer has totally got it. They don't for example milk the excitement out of rivalries by having those games all the time. I for one really can't get excited about playing Flames playing Canucks. Beating them is a little nicer than beating most other teams, but if I miss that game, it's no big deal. Another one will be just around the corner.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Also need to consider the KHL factor in this. The NHL clearly values the European market given they have teams over there to start every season. The KHL is expanding to Finland next year and have talked with teams throughout Europe. If KHL players are allowed to represent their countries, you could see situations where a player goes to the KHL for a year to play at home and represent their country.

Alternatively the KHL players could become better known in those countries if they participate and that league could grow in Europe which would be trouble for the NHL.

My feeling on players that will use the KHL as leverage is to let them go. In fact any Russian player that uses the KHL for any leverage may it be Olympics or contract negotiations can just leave. Ovechkin and all these guys can just go. The amount of Russians in the NHL is dwindling anyway and who's really missing Kovalchuck this season? The game has moved on fine without him and it will move on fine without Ovechkin, Malkin, etc. I'm so tired of players using the KHL as leverage period and the NHL should drive these guys to the airport if they don't want to play in the best league in the world.

[Resolute 14]

I hate to keep belabouring this point, but the NHL =/= hockey. It isn't the NHL's job to act as the unifying force for all hockey in the world. That's the IIHF's job. And it is thus incumbent on the IIHF to persuade the NHL that continued participation is a good thing.

Likewise, hockey is not soccer, so I don't buy the comparisons as being valid. And I say this despite the fact that the soccer example actually argues in favour of the NHL's point - there is far more money in the World Cup than there is the Olympics.