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

[btimbit]

So we know the owners opinions on this, the majority at least (or at least the most vocal). What does the NHLPA think?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, the question of amateurs vs. pros is moot. The Olympics allow professionals and and won't change. That's the bell that can no longer be unrung. The question here is what calibre of professionals will go, and it has been well known for a long time that the NHL no longer wants anything to do with the Olympics for a number of reasons.

I think it would be a "Team Canada" crafted for the Olympics made mostly of tweeners and top European pro players. These players would take a year off of their respective leagues to play with Team Canada and it would probably also involve an exhibition schedule against Canada's NHL teams, AHL teams, etc.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

It is nice that you have those fond memories of the Calgary Olympics. But professionals were allowed in the Olympics by then, as evidenced by Jim peplinski playing for Canada.

1988 was the first time players with professional experience were allowed to compete in the Olympics, but most of those who did were either retired from the NHL; in a contract dispute with their NHL club; or a fringe NHLer who took time off to play for Team Canada.

I believe that Peplinski was the only player who was released by his team to play in the Games, and the only reason he was given his release to play was because the Games were in Calgary and he was a member of the Flames (and they didn't really miss him). Steve Tambellini also played half that season with the Canucks and joined Team Canada for the Olympics, but I don't remember the circumstances surrounding that.

I don't believe any active NHLers were released to participate in 92 or 94 (if any were, they weren't high-profile players).

Generally speaking, for the three Olympics where pros were allowed, but the NHL chose to not participate fully, if you wanted to play for Team Canada, you joined them in the fall before the Games and played in whatever pre-Olympic tournaments they played in prior to the Games. Most of those who did were junior graduates who elected to not yet turn pro (Trevor Kidd, for example).

I don't know how the European pro leagues dealt with Olympic participation at that time. It looks like Forsberg played a full SEL season and the Olympics in 1994, so they must have taken a break to make it work.

Of course, in 1988, 1992, and 1994, the NHL and NHLPA had a very different CBA than exists today. Like I said before, kids who grew up in the 70s and 80s didn't dream of one day playing for Team Canada at the Olympics like kids today do, and at the end of the day, I think that will be the reason it happens.

Really, does anyone think this is not just sabre-rattling to get a bigger piece of the money anyway?

[GirlySports]

yeah I can't see them turning back now, it would undo all the work that was done since 98. As getbak said above, NHLers now dream of going to the Olympics. It would be tough to take that away.

I'm in the camp of they never should have went ever. Why abandon your own world cup that makes money for you to interrupt your own season and lose money and to fill the pocket of the IOC. It makes no sense at all.

Whereas a sport like baseball is correctly doing the opposite. Never send MLB players to the Olympics and instead create their own World Cup.

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

yeah I can't see them turning back now, it would undo all the work that was done since 98. As getbak said above, NHLers now dream of going to the Olympics. It would be tough to take that away.

I'm in the camp of they never should have went ever. Why abandon your own world cup that makes money for you to interrupt your own season and lose money and to fill the pocket of the IOC. It makes no sense at all.

Whereas a sport like baseball is correctly doing the opposite. Never send MLB players to the Olympics and instead create their own World Cup.

The world cup would never be as popular as the Olympics. That is the dilemma facing the NHL with the Olympics spotlight on the NHL players but the league gets no money out of it. The NBA started it and Bettman took the NHL down the same path. Soccer has the best of both worlds having the World Cup and the Olympics.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by hwy19man

The world cup would never be as popular as the Olympics. That is the dilemma facing the NHL with the Olympics spotlight on the NHL players but the league gets no money out of it. The NBA started it and Bettman took the NHL down the same path. Soccer has the best of both worlds having the World Cup and the Olympics.

Again, the NBA followed hockey (1988 Olympics for hockey and 1992 for basketball). Soccer Olympics only allow best players under 23 years of age for the mens competition so they don't have the best of both worlds. Both the NBA and Soccer leagues Olympic competitions are OUT OF SEASON. The NBA would never shut down mid season for a tourney of this sorts.

I also don't agree that hockey players in North America grow up dreaming about playing in the Olympics. The players want to play in the NHL and if they get picked for the Olympics then they are happy.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

It's not accurate that the the Olympics are always the best professionals. Soccer is an under 23 tournament and the boxers are still amateurs. The soccer tournament is still a very interesting competition and generally I prefer Olympic boxing to the pro version.

And that's why Olympic soccer isn't half the tournament that the World Cup is. I'd love to see Olympic soccer be unrestricted.

The distinction in boxing seems a bit more justified given that it's a rather different sport than pro boxing, but if a pro wants to and is capable of qualifying I see no reason for him to be excluded. Heck, if a WWE wrestler can qualify for Olympic wrestling, I say have at 'er!

Frankly, if the NHL isn't going to the Olympics, the IOC might as well drop men's hockey entirely. Olympic hockey would be a farce if they didn't.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by hwy19man

The world cup would never be as popular as the Olympics. That is the dilemma facing the NHL with the Olympics spotlight on the NHL players but the league gets no money out of it. The NBA started it and Bettman took the NHL down the same path. Soccer has the best of both worlds having the World Cup and the Olympics.

If the NHL never went to the Olympics then people wouldn't really think about it. Everyone watched the 1972 Summit series, did anyone watch the 1972 Winter Olympic hockey tournament? Everyone watched the 1987 Canada Cup, did anyone really care about the 1988 Winter Olympic hockey tournament other than the fact that it was held in the Saddledome?

People want to see best on best wherever it is. If the NHL pulls out of the Olympics and starts up the World Cup again, there would be a lot of growing pains. The NHL had a great opportunity when the US won the 96 World Cup. The 2000 World Cup could have been in all those new buildings down in the SunBelt to promote the new teams down there. Instead they pissed that entire tournament away and went all the way to Japan. If a student were to write a business case, he would see how poor of a business decision that was to abandon a money-making tournament and to interrupt a season in Feburary (when there is no football or baseball going on) and be at the mercy of the IOC.

I'm not sure it was a good idea for the NBA to go either but at least it's in the off-season. And for soccer? Nobody watches the Olympic Soccer tournament.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If the NHL cares what fans have to say, it's a no-brainer.

As a hockey fan, the Olympic tournament is one of the most exciting things to happen to the game of hockey. It showcases the best NHL players the world and potential new fans, all while energizing your already loyal fan-base. Bettman knows this...he's not a dummy. They will go to Korea.

Pretty much bang on.

If the league is actually concerned about growing the game and energizing fans, you have to be at the Olympics once every 4 years.

[-TC-]

Originally Posted by strombad

I think the distinction between "pro" and "amateur" isn't as clear as it used to be, which poses a problem.

Usain Bolt is technically an amateur, but he makes significant bank from endorsements. Does he get to participate while Crosby does not?

It's a fair point. It's not a black and white distinction anymore

[flamesfan1297]

How many European and Russian players would the NHL lose if they did not allow players to go to the Olympics? The NHL talent level would drop because those players would not come to play in the NHL.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

How many European and Russian players would the NHL lose if they did not allow players to go to the Olympics? The NHL talent level would drop because those players would not come to play in the NHL.

Overblown. Ovechkin might have gone to the Olympics in Russia at all cost but players will not be throwing away NHL contracts to play in Seoul, at least not on a large scale.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Again, the NBA followed hockey (1988 Olympics for hockey and 1992 for basketball). Soccer Olympics only allow best players under 23 years of age for the mens competition so they don't have the best of both worlds. Both the NBA and Soccer leagues Olympic competitions are OUT OF SEASON. The NBA would never shut down mid season for a tourney of this sorts.

I also don't agree that hockey players in North America grow up dreaming about playing in the Olympics. The players want to play in the NHL and if they get picked for the Olympics then they are happy.

The NHL didn't go to the 88 Olympics, 1 player from the host city was loaned to the Olympic team.

The NHL didn't start going to the Olympics until 1998

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Overblown. Ovechkin might have gone to the Olympics in Russia at all cost but players will not be throwing away NHL contracts to play in Seoul, at least not on a large scale.

Are they really "throwing away NHL contracts?" It's going to be a legal battle before an NHL team can cancel/nullify a contract of a player who decides to leave the team and play in the Olympics and more often than not a team probably still wants to keep that player. Most likely, you're at worse looking at a team suspension and fine.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Overblown. Ovechkin might have gone to the Olympics in Russia at all cost but players will not be throwing away NHL contracts to play in Seoul, at least not on a large scale.

Throwing away a contract? Why not just leave go and make more money in the KHL for a year and comeback and resume your contractual duties like Radulov? And if your team does not want you they can release you and allow you to sign with another team. I am sure a guy like McDavid may take that option if he wants to play in the Olympics, you are not out any money and you can come back to the NHL.

[PeteMoss]

Legit question regarding the World Cup (Soccer) - do the team owners get money from this? Or does it all just go to FIFA?

And really... if the problem is interrupting the season, I'm sure they could convince the IOC to put hockey in the summer games. It was originally in the summer games anyways.


People who like the non-NHL hockey Olympics are remembering 92 & 94 when Canada was in Gold Medal game. It would be different now since most of the best players are in the NHL... but there's also been years like 1984 where Canada went to the final round with Soviets, Czechoslovakia and Sweden and scored 0 goals in those games.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

People who like the non-NHL hockey Olympics are remembering 92 & 94 when Canada was in Gold Medal game. It would be different now since most of the best players are in the NHL... but there's also been years like 1984 where Canada went to the final round with Soviets, Czechoslovakia and Sweden and scored 0 goals in those games.

Most of Canada's best players were in the NHL in 92 & 94 as well. In fact there is fewer Canadians in the NHL now than there was in the 90s, meaning more top European players are in the NHL. So in theory it would actually be easier for Canada than it used to be.

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Overblown. Ovechkin might have gone to the Olympics in Russia at all cost but players will not be throwing away NHL contracts to play in Seoul, at least not on a large scale.

They would just stay in their home country and not sign in the NHL at all. Or only sign 3 year deals then play every fourth year in Europe or Russia

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

They would just stay in their home country and not sign in the NHL at all. Or only sign 3 year deals then play every fourth year in Europe or Russia

I agree. Lots of people use the "well he can just sign in the KHL/Europe" and make a ton of money but the facts are that the KHL can't pay these guys anywhere near what they earn here.

They also have ####ty travel schedules compared to North America and the best league in the world is the NHL by a wide margin. Kovalchuk is the only star player to return to Europe and he did it after making approx $100M playing here.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

If the NHL never went to the Olympics then people wouldn't really think about it. Everyone watched the 1972 Summit series, did anyone watch the 1972 Winter Olympic hockey tournament? Everyone watched the 1987 Canada Cup, did anyone really care about the 1988 Winter Olympic hockey tournament other than the fact that it was held in the Saddledome?

People want to see best on best wherever it is. If the NHL pulls out of the Olympics and starts up the World Cup again, there would be a lot of growing pains. The NHL had a great opportunity when the US won the 96 World Cup. The 2000 World Cup could have been in all those new buildings down in the SunBelt to promote the new teams down there. Instead they pissed that entire tournament away and went all the way to Japan. If a student were to write a business case, he would see how poor of a business decision that was to abandon a money-making tournament and to interrupt a season in Feburary (when there is no football or baseball going on) and be at the mercy of the IOC.

I'm not sure it was a good idea for the NBA to go either but at least it's in the off-season. And for soccer? Nobody watches the Olympic Soccer tournament.

You are missing who they are trying to get to watch. Yes, Canadians watched the summit series, the Russians likely did also, but that's it. Very few Americans have a clue as to what the Summit Series even is.

The NHL going to the Olympics was about one thing, and one thing only, selling the game to the Americans who do watch the Olympics. And specifically, the whole effort and starting in 98 was to iron out the kinks so that the NHLs best players were on the ice on 02 when the States were watching even more so and at prime time while they hosted the Olympics. Nathan's the only reason the NHL is there, and it was a smart choice, to milk the Salt Lake games for everything they were worth to the US audience when they hosted the games.

Following that, Vancouver hosting so closely after likely made they keep it going as it represented another opportunity to show case the NHL to the US fans at a prime time viewing games. Being in Russia likely has more to do with appeasing the Russian players and managing that element of them wanting the chance to play in their home games after the US and Canadian players just recently got the opportunity.

Now, not sure the same need exists to keep sending the players, to sell the game, especially to locations like Korea. The interest might peak again for the NHL should another North American games comes around, but until then there is next to no benefit for the league in being there, and I agree they should go back to the World Cup and copy what soccer does.