Women's professional hockey - will it ever work?

[JohnnyB]

Is a market where there are still stadiums that won't sell out so saturated that there is excess demand being unmet? Doesn't seem likely.

Could another men's league start up with fresh teams and have a go at competing against the NHL in the same markets? Seems like a stupidly tough proposition.

Is women playing instead of men playing a big enough difference to bring out a whole new group of customers with needs not being met by the current league? I really doubt it.

It's not even a men vs women issue.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

The NHL should do something even if it means taking a loss for a few years. They are missing out potential hard core supporters from half of society. Yeah it’s a big risk but they need to try something.

The teams need to be linked to NHL teams to have any success. No one cares about the Inferno but call them the Calgary Flames, put them in the same jerseys, give them a part of the marketing power, and play a few games as double headers before NHL exhibitions and all of a sudden it has legitimacy. You’d get young girls who are maybe casual fans really into the game and they would also gain instant support from die hard Flames fans both male and female.

AFLW is the model to follow. It went from playing one exhibition game per year to 16 teams with 50k crowds in 3 years.

Is there actually a correlation between having a women's league translating to expanding the female fanbase? Just because they're female doesn't mean they prefer to watch a women's game over a men's game. It'd be different if the gap between the two wasn't so big, but unfortunately, it is. People just aren't excited to commit significant time to watch an inferior product, that's the reality of it.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Nobody will support a hockey league without hitting, men or women.

I've seen AFLW. It is just as rough.

Yeah why isn’t there hitting? There should be hitting.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FireGilbert

The NHL should do something even if it means taking a loss for a few years. They are missing out potential hard core supporters from half of society. Yeah it’s a big risk but they need to try something.

The teams need to be linked to NHL teams to have any success. No one cares about the Inferno but call them the Calgary Flames, put them in the same jerseys, give them a part of the marketing power, and play a few games as double headers before NHL exhibitions and all of a sudden it has legitimacy. You’d get young girls who are maybe casual fans really into the game and they would also gain instant support from die hard Flames fans both male and female.

AFLW is the model to follow. It went from playing one exhibition game per year to 16 teams with 50k crowds in 3 years.

On the AFLW: That is a massive misrepresentation. They drew 50k once, for the Grand Final. And while that is obviously extremely impressive, it's the peak moment for the sport. Women's hockey will sell out NHL arenas for the Olympic Gold Medal game, which is the peak moment for women's hockey.

That said, the AFLW teams drew crowds - in a 10 team league, not 16 - that is roughly equivalent to what junior hockey draws here. Most teams in the 2-4,000 range and a couple in the 9k range. On a season where every team plays only three or four home games. Also, 6 of the 10 teams play in the same city, which certainly helps travel costs.

[Harry Lime]

They need to think outside of the box.

The NHL wants to grow the sport in non-traditional markets. Why not create a 6 team league in Britain as the only top level league. The NHL could pay for operations, equipment and full time minimum wage to players, with any profit going back into player bonuses. NHL recoups costs by building awareness in a big market at minimal cost.

Sell TV rights back to North America and build a niche market with accent on international tournaments.

Will it lose money. Yeah. Will it lose a lot of money. No. Will it expand the audience for the NHL. Maybe, but at the cost likely worth the gamble.

Take it out of the competition of North America.

[pepper24]

It won't work as the skill set isn't quite there and there are better alternatives. WHL, Jr A, CIS/NCAA depending where you live that is affordable and better hockey.

The Women's Olympic team played Alberta Midget AAA teams leading up to last Olympics and were a .500 team those games. The same team that played in the gold medal game against the US team was an average Midget AAA team. This is taking the best players of all the "pro" women's teams so the women's league would be even worse hockey than Midget AAA. You can go see a top end AAA team like the Buffaloes for free.

Hailey Wickenheiser which is regarded as the Gretzky of women's hockey and a hall of famer used to practice with the U of C Dino's about 10+ years ago. A friend who played on that team said she was easily the worse player out there. This is against former WHLers but her skill set wasn't even close.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

They need to think outside of the box.

The NHL wants to grow the sport in non-traditional markets. Why not create a 6 team league in Britain as the only top level league. The NHL could pay for operations, equipment and full time minimum wage to players, with any profit going back into player bonuses. NHL recoups costs by building awareness in a big market at minimal cost.

Sell TV rights back to North America and build a niche market with accent on international tournaments.

Will it lose money. Yeah. Will it lose a lot of money. No. Will it expand the audience for the NHL. Maybe, but at the cost likely worth the gamble.

Take it out of the competition of North America.

There are even more professional hockey leagues in Europe (and Britain. Hell I know a guy who went over there to play professionally in Britain’s second tier pro league).

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

They need to think outside of the box.

The NHL wants to grow the sport in non-traditional markets. Why not create a 6 team league in Britain as the only top level league. The NHL could pay for operations, equipment and full time minimum wage to players, with any profit going back into player bonuses. NHL recoups costs by building awareness in a big market at minimal cost.

Sell TV rights back to North America and build a niche market with accent on international tournaments.

Will it lose money. Yeah. Will it lose a lot of money. No. Will it expand the audience for the NHL. Maybe, but at the cost likely worth the gamble.

Take it out of the competition of North America.

The TV rights thing is going to be a tough sell, previous televised games drew about as well as televised spelling bee's.


When you sell TV rights you have to guarantee the network in terms of ad buys and ratings. If you don't achieve the numbers promised, you have to make good on that with the network, also advertisers will look for a certain guarantee in terms of viewership in their demographic. if its not where its promised, you're either selling advertising cheaper or making good in terms of future ad buys.


Sports like the NHL sell across a lot of demographics, so you get a lot of advertisers and ratings become easier. Woman's pro hockey doesn't do that, even hardcore hockey fans won't tune in consistently.



Putting woman's hockey in Britain would fail.


If you want to sell the game, put it in non nhl or major junior cities and make it a gate driven league. Don't bother with a TV deal. Do it streaming with a low subscription price and sell specific sponsorship deals.


Instead of going to the NHL and asking for money, make it easy and ask for their expertise in terms of marketing, kind of like a donate some time to help us get established.

[CaptainCrunch]

I keep going back to any presentation that starts with give us money so we can pay a good salary to the players.



The response is going to be, you draw less then 500 people a game on average and how many of those tickets are discounted or give aways? And your televised finals was watched by less people then infomercials on at 2 in the morning. What are you expecting here. Give us a proper business plan, go away and show it works and increases attendance and paid gates and then we'll talk.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The TV rights thing is going to be a tough sell, previous televised games drew about as well as televised spelling bee's.

Whoa...hey now, lets not say things we cant take back.

The finals of the National Spelling Bee, which saw a record eight-way tie for the victory, scored 555,000 viewers on ESPN Thursday night — up 1% from last year (547K), but down 8% from 2017 (605K). Viewership also trailed 2016 (859K) and 2015 (954K).

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/201...pga-tour-wnba/

Televised Spelling Bees draw way, way more TV viewers.

I dont think every women's hockey league in every media variant drew anywhere near that many viewers cumulatively over the entire season.

[CaptainCrunch]

jeez thanks for throwing that back in my face


Who knew

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

jeez thanks for throwing that back in my face


Who knew

It speaks to the overall point though. They're not out-drawing Spelling Bees.

You cant get paid as a Professional without a significant enough interest to pay for your professional service.

Its not enough to just be the best at something if theres no demand or draw for that thing.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I don't know very much about the NBA/WNBA but if the WNBA loses $10 million per year which comes out of the NBA's pocket who cares? From what I have seen online the NBA generated $8 billion in revenue last year and they have a revenue sharing pool where each team received $110 million. Why would anyone be concerned about a $10 million loss? The goodwill generated by having a women's league and the support for girls sports, equality and esteem is much more valuable than a relatively measly loss.

As long as we're talking about a charitable donation though, I'd submit there's much better areas that money could be put by the NHL and other leagues towards women and girls than creating a professional league that there's no demand for. Why not use the money to create, or subsidize if they exist already, girls hockey leagues across North America and Europe? The only reason Canada and the US are miles ahead of the women's teams in other hockey playing countries is that they don't get nearly the attention and funding the men do. Why not spread that money around to increase access to the game for girls that otherwise wouldn't have the chance for this life experience? I think I speak for a lot of people when I say playing team sports as a kid was some of the best memories of my childhood. You learn sportsmanship and teamwork, stay active, and most importantly make a lot of great friends and memories. That's what sports is about, not an infinitesimal chance of being able to play professionally one day. I'd rather money go towards creating those opportunities for a lot of girls than create a league so that an incredibly slim minority of them can have a chance to make a passable living playing professionally.

[Matty81]

I think the salary debate is a separate issue. I tend to agree that equity should only apply when the business/business environment are also the same.

As far as it being a worthwhile investment, from extensive experience I can say with 100% certainty that a lot of little girls aren't interested in watching hockey when it is all boys playing, that they're not connoisseurs who are going to be discouraged by difference in quality of play and that they don't give a rats ____ about hitting or fighting. What draws them in are the goals, the celebrations, a little drama and relatability.

I think in general the NHL is cutting its own throat by failing to do outreach to a broad cross-section of little kids and also presenting a product that is more accessible to young girls and poorer families. They are successfully squeezing every cent out of old people who grew up in the HNIC as religion era but a lot of kids now don't watch hockey, families can't afford to go to NHL games, etc. And compounding it they have way more entertainment alternatives.

If the NHL were to do it, would be a very short season with co-branded teams, lots of comp tickets to girls minor hockey and some half decent promotion. It wouldn't be a money maker but it would be a very successful entry point to fandom for a lot of families that would make them money bigger picture long run.

The NHL should be pumping money into minor hockey partnerships and co-branding more inexpensive products as entry points if it wants to be viable in 50 years.

People have a hard time wrapping their heads around something that is mainstream ever not being that way, but the NHL is on the path to self-strangulation with its efforts to squeeze every buck it can while neglecting poorer people and kids.

[GioforPM]

So legit question: How long and how much effort did it take for big women's sports like tennis, golf or even curling, who compete with the same rules as men's leagues, to become popular. Golf and tennis events for women have been around forever but surely it was something of a process.

The women's soccer leagues in Europe are pretty new - I'd look at how they developed.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Whoa...hey now, lets not say things we cant take back.

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/201...pga-tour-wnba/

Televised Spelling Bees draw way, way more TV viewers.

I dont think every women's hockey league in every media variant drew anywhere near that many viewers cumulatively over the entire season.

How many viewers do women's games draw on television?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

So legit question: How long and how much effort did it take for big women's sports like tennis, golf or even curling, who compete with the same rules as men's leagues, to become popular. Golf and tennis events for women have been around forever but surely it was something of a process.

The women's soccer leagues in Europe are pretty new - I'd look at how they developed.

Curling shows virtually no difference in gameplay.

Soccer is a beast of its own globally.

Tennis and Golf, as they are individual sports, have huge marketability and the players have no city designation. It is easy to latch on to an individual you are a fan of and follow that person. Where as trying to make fans like a team with ever shifting players... it’s much more difficult.

[RichKlit]

I just don't understand why its on the NHL to support this? How is it the NHL's responsibility to fund, promote and push forth a product that frankly no one is interested in?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Curling shows virtually no difference in gameplay.

Soccer is a beast of its own globally.

Tennis and Golf, as they are individual sports, have huge marketability and the players have no city designation. It is easy to latch on to an individual you are a fan of and follow that person. Where as trying to make fans like a team with ever shifting players... it’s much more difficult.

What I guess I'm asking is if those sports had it tough as far as viability in the early days. Like, did the LPGA go through years of unprofitability before breaking through in the 70s (I'm making up the date)?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

What I guess I'm asking is if those sports had it tough as far as viability in the early days. Like, did the LPGA go through years of unprofitability before breaking through in the 70s (I'm making up the date)?

Knowing golf they probably just weren’t allowed to play before then.
(I don’t know the history at all)