UPD: US Women's NT and USA Hockey reach deal

[thymebalm]

Good for those women. 70k as we know pales in comparison to what the average poster on this board makes and with the costs of living going steadily upwards this is basically just a living wage.

It's a good deal, and clearly, the money was there to give them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

Good for those women. 70k as we know pales in comparison to what the average poster on this board makes and with the costs of living going steadily upwards this is basically just a living wage.

It's a good deal, and clearly, the money was there to give them.

I tend to think that money comes out of other budgets for woman's hockey like development camps etc for younger players.

Hey the girls got what they wanted and good for them.

[polak]

70K USD and no real reason to live in an urban center?

These girls hit the jackpot. Hopefully the money didn't come from membership dues.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Jeez, they make more than CFL players now. That is a joke.

More like CFL salaries are a joke IMO. I know a couple players personally and it's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Sounds like USA Hockey got taken for a ride on this one.

Also, sounds like literally every player USA Hockey reached out to to play on the replacement players' team told them to pound sand.

Could it be that it's hard to find people who are capable of playing at that level but also willing to work full time for what they were paying before?

Originally Posted by Locke

Holy hell!!

Where did all that money come from?

$70K per year to play like 15 meaningful games a decade?

I took a quick look at the USA Hockey consolidated financials. The $1m or so that this costs is about 2% of revenues, if I got the right figures.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

70K USD and no real reason to live in an urban center?

These girls hit the jackpot. Hopefully the money didn't come from membership dues.

It'll be interesting to see, but if we're talking what 20 players at 70k of 1.4 million dollars.

I looked at USA Hockey they bring in about 26 million in registration fees
They spend a total of 4 million per year on national team development and about 3 million a year on player development

in terms of junior hockey programs for boys and girls they spend about half a million for youth hockey they spend about 3/4 of a million.

last year I think that lost about 3 million in cash. But I'm no accountant so a lot of their consolidated financial statements are mars to be.

but spending an additional 1.4 million is serious money to this organization, I would expect that they are going to cut back on development programs or jack up registration or a combination of both.

I would also maybe expect that after the 2018 they don't bring together a national team anymore, they just grab players a month before major tournaments and then bring them together for an Olympic year.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

More like CFL salaries are a joke IMO. I know a couple players personally and it's ridiculous.



Could it be that it's hard to find people who are capable of playing at that level but also willing to work full time for what they were paying before?




I took a quick look at the USA Hockey consolidated financials. The $1m or so that this costs is about 2% of revenues, if I got the right figures.

No I'm seeing the same thing, however it looks like the revenues are about 42 million the expenses are 35 million but the two major components of revenue are registration fees and a non increasing grant of 8 million dollars. Overall it looks like they're increasing their cash position by about 5 million dollars a year in non olympic years. So adding 1.4 million dollars a year for salary expenses is going to hurt and make them increase revenues.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

No I'm seeing the same thing, however it looks like the revenues are about 42 million the expenses are 35 million but the two major components of revenue are registration fees and a non increasing grant of 8 million dollars. Overall it looks like they're increasing their cash position by about 5 million dollars a year in non olympic years. So adding 1.4 million dollars a year for salary expenses is going to hurt and make them increase revenues.

It is entirely possible, though, that USA Hockey can raise an additional million per year in sponsorships dedicated to the senior women's team. If I'm them, I have the deal structured to require players to participate in any such marketing tie-ins. For outside organizations, a few hundred K is not a huge hit in sponsorship dough. You might get some companies aimed at women's products interested.

[MontanaFlame]

USA Hockey currently lists 622,883 registered members. Even if they wanted to cover the $1.4 million entirely through increased fees they would need to increase them by a whopping $2.25. I need to register with USA Hockey to play in the local beer league and my annual membership fee is $40. They could easily raise it to $45 and I wouldn't bat an eye, I doubt any one would. I'm sure they won't even need to do that as they could find the money somewhere else, but my point is $1.4 million isn't really that much to this organization

[polak]

Doesn't matter. The salaries of the players should be paid for by the money they generate, not the mom's and dad's trying to put their kid through hockey.

Want to pool all the money that both national teams generate? Cool. Taking money from grassroots to pay these girls a salary that's $20 grand more than the average american makes is nuts.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MontanaFlame

USA Hockey currently lists 622,883 registered members. Even if they wanted to cover the $1.4 million entirely through increased fees they would need to increase them by a whopping $2.25. I need to register with USA Hockey to play in the local beer league and my annual membership fee is $40. They could easily raise it to $45 and I wouldn't bat an eye, I doubt any one would. I'm sure they won't even need to do that as they could find the money somewhere else, but my point is $1.4 million isn't really that much to this organization

I get that, but at the same time, suddenly the woman's team salary is double that of development in youth and junior hockey and in terms of hockey related expenses becomes one of the bigger expenses on the books.


Let me put this another way the consolidated payroll for the entire hockey USA last year was just slightly above a million dollars.

Now your adding another 1.4 million dollars.

In terms of national team development hockey USA spent 4 million now you have to add 1.4 million to that just for the woman's hockey team.

The question is going to be after this Olympics. Is it worth it, is the profile of the sport improving. And do we basically pay the girls players half of the national team development budget.

I would expect that the question of keeping woman's hockey in the olympics is going to be debated if this is another Godzilla and Mothra versus Bambi tournament, especially now that the woman are for a lack of better words professionals.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Could it be that it's hard to find people who are capable of playing at that level but also willing to work full time for what they were paying before?

USA Hockey was just looking for players for the tournament that starts Friday. As in, they couldn't find anyone willing to, essentially, cross a picket line for a two week trip to the world championships.


Also, the USA Today article doesn't articulate it well, but that $70k figure include money they could receive from the USOC for winning Olympic medals. That's not entirely paid for by USA Hockey.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that the question of keeping woman's hockey in the olympics is going to be debated if this is another Godzilla and Mothra versus Bambi tournament, especially now that the woman are for a lack of better words professionals.

You are conflating two issues. The IOC and IIHF don't care about USA Hockey's internal battles. This deal won't have even the slightest impact on the status of women's hockey in the Olympics.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

More like CFL salaries are a joke IMO. I know a couple players personally and it's ridiculous.

I do agree but guys like me had to make a decision to either push it to make the CFL, or give it up and use the education that we received a substantial discount on and get a real job. We had to make a decision based on market conditions, this is why this doesn't sit well with me.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

I do agree but guys like me had to make a decision to either push it to make the CFL, or give it up and use the education that we received a substantial discount on and get a real job. We had to make a decision based on market conditions, this is why this doesn't sit well with me.

You do realize that what these women are getting has absolutely zero impact on CFL players one way or the other?

I really fail to see the point of this kind of jealousy.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by Itse

You do realize that what these women are getting has absolutely zero impact on CLF players one way or the other?

I really fail to see the point of this kind of jealousy.

Bottom line is the cfl is an actual revenue producing business with salaries dictated by market conditions, the women's world championships is not. Last year the attendance was 41,000 over 21 games. At $25 per ticket, that wouldn't even cover the US team's new wages, let alone the other teams there.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Bottom line is the cfl is an actual revenue producing business with salaries dictated by market conditions, the women's world championships is not. Last year the attendance was 41,000 over 21 games.

What has any of that got to do with anything?

Again, these are completely separate finances for completely separate players.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by Itse

What has any of that got to do with anything?

Again, these are completely separate finances for completely separate players.

Perhaps you are right, the cfl is an actual business, women's hockey is a social program. Sorry for the confusion

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Perhaps you are right, the cfl is an actual business, women's hockey is a social program. Sorry for the confusion

[KingMoo]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Bottom line is the cfl is an actual revenue producing business with salaries dictated by market conditions, the women's world championships is not. Last year the attendance was 41,000 over 21 games. At $25 per ticket, that wouldn't even cover the US team's new wages, let alone the other teams there.

im with you on this one. I understand that some subsidies are required to keep the program afloat, but 100k plus expenses is well above and beyond what they deserve. Many pro sport players contribute in teams that turn a profit, yet they get a much lower salary. Worst part is now the path is paved for other women's programs to basically unionize and threaten to quit unless they receive their handouts too.

[GGG]

I wonder if this settlement sets the bar for the Men's Hockey team that will need funding in a few months when the NHL teams don't go to the Olympics. If you want a full time team you are competing with the AHL and Europe for players so will have to pay them.

Also for those who wanted them to get Market value, that is exactly what they did. USA hockey has decided that the value of having a Womens National team is worth at least 1 million dollars more than they were currently paying. You are worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay you.