[News] IOC and IIHF make big Olympic concessions

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I believe the NHL collects reams of data on what makes them money, where, and how, Strange Brew. And yes, that will include foreign revenue sources. And if you don't think a nearly $5 billion business does this, then there is going to be no point whatsoever in engaging you further on it.

That seems unnecessarily snarky. I am certain the NHL conducts market research, but I suspect hockey owners and the NHL in general are too provincial to fund a study and collect reams of data of the long term impact of exposing hockey to a worldwide audience. It feels to me you're still just appealing to authority. "They have the data, they know what to do and if you don't agree, there's no point in debating". Unless we have some of this information, there seems to be little point in discussing it.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And yes, I am saying the NHL doesn't see sufficient value in its continued participation. And whether or not you "trust in their decision making process" is irrelevant. That is their position. They are the ones putting their pocketbooks on the line, and they are the ones who get to decide if there is enough value.

Of course they get to decide. Who is arguing otherwise? Some people disagree with their posture on this and feel it is worth debate.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And at the risk of repeating myself, the NHL knows how much the Olympics helps to "capitalize on global growth opportunities". You're still trying to make a business decision into an emotional one. As a fan that's certainly your prerogative, but it remains utterly irrelevant to the business side of the debate.

I disagree with how you are attempting to characterize my position. I'm in no way trying to turn it into an emotional decision.

It's quite simple IMO. The NHL is the best hockey league in the world and it's not even close. What is good for hockey is inevitably good for the business of the NHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As Canadians, I don't think we really understand how inaccessible ice hockey is to the vast majority of the people in the world. Not only do you need the infrastructure of ice rinks, but with the expensive equipment and highly specialized training, even in Canada it has become a sport for the affluent.

Expecting Olympic hockey to substantially grow participation in places like China is like expecting a high-profile polo tournament to substantially grow participation in that sport globally.

The NHL has correctly discerned that the most promising source of new hockey fans and players is upper-middle-class Americans.

This is a good point Cliff, although I wonder how direct the correlation is between developing fans of the sport vs. participants. I see a lot of people wearing NBA jerseys every day that don't look like they shoot a lot of hoops.

And while cost is a huge deal, the one difference I'm always struck with when I return to Canada is the number of neighborhood outdoor rinks, which certainly help bring the cost to a more manageable level.

The world is so gigantic that there still has to be a lot of room for growth outside of NA even with some of the challenges that may be inherent to the game.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This is a good point Cliff, although I wonder how direct the correlation is between developing fans of the sport vs. participants. I see a lot of people wearing NBA jerseys every day that don't look like they shoot a lot of hoops.

And while cost is a huge deal, the one difference I'm always struck with when I return to Canada is the number of neighborhood outdoor rinks, which certainly help bring the cost to a more manageable level.

The world is so gigantic that there still has to be a lot of room for growth outside of NA even with some of the challenges that may be inherent to the game.

The NBA is engrained in street culture and fashion.

[GirlySports]

You all know my position on this. They should have never gone to Nagano and instead promoted the World Cup where the money goes into their pockets.

2000 World Cup should have been hosted in the new Sunbelt markets with the US as defending champs. The World Cup could be huge now. Want to grow hockey in Asia? Give them one berth and a piece of the pie in a 16 team World Cup.

[Resolute 14]

Strange Brew - you complain about how I am mischaracterizing your position as being an emotional one, then you literally follow that up with an entirely emotional argument of claiming that "what's good for hockey is good for the business of the NHL" based only on your feelings that it must be true. This was also after you emotionally decided that the owners - a collection of billionaires and business magnates - are "too provincial" to properly understand how their business works because you don't like the answer they came up with. Dude, I've got you characterized quite properly.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm curious how good NHL viewership numbers were during the 2018 winter olympics? I imagine those numbers are closely guarded.

TV deals likely factor into this, too. Does NBC want to show NHL during the Olympics? Rogers may be fine with it, though they probably do just as well in their limited role in the olympic consortium...


Seems like yet another good argument for a 76 game season...

I can tell you I certainly paid the NHL no attention during the last Olympics outside of checking the scores when the Flames were playing. I would be surprised if NHL ratings didn't take a huge hit.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You all know my position on this. They should have never gone to Nagano and instead promoted the World Cup where the money goes into their pockets.

2000 World Cup should have been hosted in the new Sunbelt markets with the US as defending champs. The World Cup could be huge now. Want to grow hockey in Asia? Give them one berth and a piece of the pie in a 16 team World Cup.

The problem is, you're talking about essentially pre-season hockey with players out of game shape and only half invested in winning. Nobody can argue that the motivation factor at the Olympics is about as high as it gets outside of the playoffs and it makes for a great product.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You really believe the NHL collects reams of data on the popularity of hockey in markets outside of North America? I haven't heard of any of it, if they have. And remember the world is certainly different than in the 1990's and 200's in terms of accessibility.



I knew someone would bring up the injury risk. So one injury of note in 5 Olympics. Does it actually make a difference whether Tavares is injured in game 52 of the regular season vs. the Olympics? Isn't the impact to the NHL the same?...

I think the much bigger issues for the NHL are the compressed schedule, and the impact on viewership that a three week hiatus creates in today's attention deficit culture. The change in routine is a big deal for all the players, and adding an additional dozen or so games on the other side of the world even more so for the League's top players. It's not just the concern about what might happen at the Olympics themselves, it is everything else that the scheduling and travel affects.

I know you are sceptical about the NHL's data on This, but then I guess this raises questions about their motivation in these negotiations: if this is already such a good deal for the League, then why do they continue to hold their players out of the Olympics?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

I can tell you I certainly paid the NHL no attention during the last Olympics outside of checking the scores when the Flames were playing. I would be surprised if NHL ratings didn't take a huge hit.

I can tell you it was the complete opposite for me. I had absolutely no interest in the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament until the medal rounds, and the only game I watched was the last one. I was just as focused on the NHL as ever in February.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[Resolute 14]

If NHL ratings took a hit during the Olympics, it is more likely that the reason would be that the Olympics were on, not that anyone was angry at the NHL players not going.

Most hardcore hockey fans would have watched the Olympics in the morning and then the NHL in the evening.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

The problem is, you're talking about essentially pre-season hockey with players out of game shape and only half invested in winning. Nobody can argue that the motivation factor at the Olympics is about as high as it gets outside of the playoffs and it makes for a great product.

You never watched Canada Cups up til 96 did you?

Nobody is ever half interested in winning when wearing their national colors in the only best on best tournament there is at the time.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I can tell you it was the complete opposite for me. I had absolutely no interest in the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament until the medal rounds, and the only game I watched was the last one. I was just as focused on the NHL as ever in February.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure I didn't watch a second of hockey during that span...too many other fun events to watch. Would have definitely watched real Olympic hockey, though.

I'm very curious whether the CBC was smart enough to include provisions in their IOC broadcast deal to account for NHL vs. no NHL. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm pretty sure I didn't watch a second of hockey during that span...too many other fun events to watch. Would have definitely watched real Olympic hockey, though.

I'm very curious whether the CBC was smart enough to include provisions in their IOC broadcast deal to account for NHL vs. no NHL. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they didn't

This is the answer to why the NHL won't agree with the IOC. IF the NHL it the selling point, or money point, in the Olympics then they deserve to be paid for making the sacrifice from their own league.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Strange Brew - you complain about how I am mischaracterizing your position as being an emotional one, then you literally follow that up with an entirely emotional argument of claiming that "what's good for hockey is good for the business of the NHL" based only on your feelings that it must be true. This was also after you emotionally decided that the owners - a collection of billionaires and business magnates - are "too provincial" to properly understand how their business works because you don't like the answer they came up with. Dude, I've got you characterized quite properly.

It is not emotional to comprehend that as the popularity of hockey rises around the world, the NHL stands to directly profit. You must be trolling me. I understand there are arguments for and against Olympic participation but to dispute that point? Licensing, broadcasting rights, sponsorships. Come on.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

It is not emotional to comprehend that as the popularity of hockey rises around the world, the NHL stands to directly profit. You must be trolling me. I understand there are arguments for and against Olympic participation but to dispute that point? Licensing, broadcasting rights, sponsorships. Come on.

All things the NHL doesn't get to participate in with the IOC and IIHF offer. Surely you can see this only benefits them and not the NHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the much bigger issues for the NHL are the compressed schedule, and the impact on viewership that a three week hiatus creates in today's attention deficit culture. The change in routine is a big deal for all the players, and adding an additional dozen or so games on the other side of the world even more so for the League's top players. It's not just the concern about what might happen at the Olympics themselves, it is everything else that the scheduling and travel affects.

I know you are sceptical about the NHL's data on This, but then I guess this raises questions about their motivation in these negotiations: if this is already such a good deal for the League, then why do they continue to hold their players out of the Olympics?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Well no doubt we have an attention deficit culture, but then most pro sports do have off seasons. I'm not convinced that a three week hiatus is that big a negative. While your top players are playing hockey, the other 80% of the league is resting. And while no doubt there is a belief that the Olympics occur in a favorable part of the schedule for the NHL, I have to believe that casual hockey fans watch less NHL hockey and attend fewer games while the Olympics are going on and providing a viewing alternative.

As for why the NHL holds their players out, haven't they made that clear? They see the Olympics making big $'s with their players and they want a piece of the action. It is about money and their belief that a tough negotiating stance will get more $'s in their pockets in the immediate term.

As I said at the outset, participating in the Olympics is a long game, As are many efforts to grow the sport. I believe there aren't enough people involved in the NHL who believe in the appeal of the game itself to make this is a priority so they are focused on the immediate. Sounds like a lot of businesses.

No doubt NHL players will be back in the Olympics at some point. It makes too much sense for everyone.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

All things the NHL doesn't get to participate in with the IOC and IIHF offer. Surely you can see this only benefits them and not the NHL.

Think beyond the Olympics. If someone watches the Olympics and becomes a hockey fan, don't you see how that benefits the NHL, the best hockey league in the world?

If you become an Ovechkin fan, how will you watch him play? Will you buy his Capitals sweater? Will you play an NHL licensed video game? Will new companies see the benefits of sponsoring NHL teams, players etc. to leverage the increased popularity of the sport and the players?

All directly tie back to NHL revenue streams not just the IOC or IIHF.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well no doubt we have an attention deficit culture, but then most pro sports do have off seasons. I'm not convinced that a three week hiatus is that big a negative. While your top players are playing hockey, the other 80% of the league is resting. And while no doubt there is a belief that the Olympics occur in a favorable part of the schedule for the NHL, I have to believe that casual hockey fans watch less NHL hockey and attend fewer games while the Olympics are going on and providing a viewing alternative.

I would like to see the numbers on this. Getting broadcast ratings for NHL games from February last year is probably a challenge, but it should be easy enough to find which—if any—markets suffered declines in attendance during the Olympics.

As for why the NHL holds their players out, haven't they made that clear? They see the Olympics making big $'s with their players and they want a piece of the action. It is about money and their belief that a tough negotiating stance will get more $'s in their pockets in the immediate term.

Of course it is about money. I guess at this point the question is whether or not it is money to which the League and its players are entitled. I say they are, and they should go get it now instead of having to wait for another two or three decades to see [non-guaranteed] tangible results from growing the sport. That just strikes me as a terrible investment strategy.

As I said at the outset, participating in the Olympics is a long game, As are many efforts to grow the sport. I believe there aren't enough people involved in the NHL who believe in the appeal of the game itself to make this is a priority so they are focused on the immediate. Sounds like a lot of businesses.

How long though? If there was any truth to your "long game" theory then I would have expected better results after 20 years. The fact that there are few actually suggests that the League rightly sees the current level of investment as a losing one.

No doubt NHL players will be back in the Olympics at some point. It makes too much sense for everyone.

Well, it does under certain conditions, which is why the NHL is pushing for more from the IOC. If participation made as much sense on its own as you seem to suggest, then the NHL would be a lot more eager to get back to the Olympic stage than they appear to be. I am convinced that the players don't go back until these issues surrounding licensing, promotion and costs is resolved to the NHL's satisfaction.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I would like to see the numbers on this. Getting broadcast ratings for NHL games from February last year is probably a challenge, but it should be easy enough to find which—if any—markets suffered declines in attendance during the Olympics.


Of course it is about money. I guess at this point the question is whether or not it is money to which the League and its players are entitled. I say they are, and they should go get it now instead of having to wait for another two or three decades to see tangible results from growing the sport. That must strikes me as a terrible investment strategy.

Why two or three decades? And how are you calculating the cost of participating in the Olympics? And the potential return? I don't see how you are concluding it is a terrible investment strategy with zero data. All I am arguing is the logic and appeal of growing the sport. Don't you see all pro sports making investments in this?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How long though? If there was any truth to your "long game" theory then I would have expected better results after 20 years. The fact that there are few actually suggests that the League rightly sees the current level of investment as a losing one.

It is not a long game theory. Are you saying there are no economic benefits to the NHL in seeing the sport of hockey grow in popularity? How are you measuring the results over the last 20 years?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Well, it does under certain conditions, which is why the NHL is pushing for more from the IOC. If participation made as much sense on its own as you seem to suggest, then the NHL would be a lot more eager to get back to the Olympic stage than they appear to be. I am convinced that the players don't go back until these issues surrounding licensing, promotion and costs is resolved to the NHL's satisfaction.

This started with you asking what benefit there was to NHL participation in the Olympics. I remain perplexed that you don't acknowledge any. I don't recall saying that the NHL should roll over and give the IOC whatever they want. What I have consistently stated is that it is to the NHL's advantage to see the popularity of the sport grow. When something is in both parties interests, you negotiate in good faith to come to a satisfactory conclusion. That is what I believe the NHL should attempt to do.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Why two or three decades?

I thought that was obvious. The NHL sent its players to the Olympics for two decades, and then stopped. It seems they were either willfully ignorant of all the growth in their sport over that time; or they determined that it was not valuable enough on its own to keep sending their players; or there just wasn't much growth tied to Olympic participation at all.

And how are you calculating the cost of participating in the Olympics? And the potential return? I don't see how you are concluding it is a terrible investment strategy with zero data. All I am arguing is the logic and appeal of growing the sport. Don't you see all pro sports making investments in this?

You're right. I don't have any data—none of us do except perhaps the NHL and the IOC. I am inferring from the actions of both of these parties that the NHL is dissatisfied with the current investment, and wants a better deal. It seems like a perfectly reasonable expectation to me.

It is not a long game theory. Are you saying there are no economic benefits to the NHL in seeing the sport of hockey grow in popularity? How are you measuring the results over the last 20 years?

No. I am saying that we know nothing about the economic benifits of Olympic participation from the past 20 years beyond the fact that the BoG has been vocally dissatisfied with them for a fairly long time. I am saying that—at best—exposure ON ITS OWN, and the growth of the game ON ITS OWN are quite reasonably not worth enough to the League to keep sending their players to the Olympics without any sort of tangible, immediate compensation. At worst, these are idealistic buzzwords. We don't know that the NHL does not benefit from participation any more than we know that they do. I see a lot of hand waving about kids buying Ovechkin jerseys and video games without any evidence to support this assertion.

This started with you asking what benefit there was to NHL participation in the Olympics. I remain perplexed that you don't acknowledge any.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think if this were true, or that if the League believed that Olympic exposure ON ITS 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.

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 have acknowledged that there is seemingly some benefit, but I have consistently maintained that it is quite plausibly inconsequential or even imagined.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't recall saying that the NHL should roll over and give the IOC whatever they want. What I have consistently stated is that it is to the NHL's advantage to see the popularity of the sport grow. When something is in both parties interests, you negotiate in good faith to come to a satisfactory conclusion. That is what I believe the NHL should attempt to do.

Right. So we agree. Is that not exactly what the League is presently doing? After gifting their players and their schedule to the IOC in exchange for nothing more than hopes of exposure and growth, they have said that they want a lot more from the IOC. It's a negotiation.