Battle between PWHPA, CWHL, and NWHL

[SenSaddest]

I did not see a place to put this thread but i figure its important

Preface: First off I want what is best for the game and for it to continue to grow.

Watching Tim and Friends today (sportsnet show in canada)

Hearing Cassie Campbell state that the NWHL is not a true womens professional league is counter productive.
She states that it is not the PWHPA vs NWHL yet she went on to talk down towards it. They say that both leagues would survive but if either of them get the NHL sponsorship money we all know the other is doomed.
I can't speak to the NWHL but from what I understand there is a decently strong following in the US already.

I had friends in the CWHL, I remember them working 9-5s then driving to a game or practice every night. I completely respect the players sitting out for a unified league, but this one or the other culture is going to continue to destroy the game. All these Olympic athletes sitting out their primes for refusal to coexist is just a shame... I'm not sure what the solution is here, but both parties here are just as at fault (atleast thats what it looks like). Whats your take?


Edit, here is video

 

[Chips]

Best thing the women could do to have a league is alter the game similar to Ice Cubes 3v3 basketball. Or just do a tournament every year to generate interest by exposing people to the game, but keep costs and travel down.


They will not survive AND be self sustaining and profitable trying to be “the NHL as played by women”

AHL, ECHL, Junior leagues college etc. there’s plenty of men’s hockey ranging great quality game to cheap tickets available.

change enough so that it’s different product from NHL hockey, but still hockey.

I do not support the NHL propping up their own WNBA. I guess I’m not against it either, but I’m against the idea that they “owe” it or that they’re negatively viewed for not propping a league.


“Right to play the game” is not at all the same thing as the “right to earn a living playing a job you’d like just because you’d like it”.
There’s lower men’s leagues making $200 a week working multiple jobs... they equally “deserve” to be paid money just because they like the game.

I hope the women’s players get a regular league, and I certainly don’t mind the NHL/broadcasters help give them a platform, but funding a league is overkill.

 

[7even]

Best thing the women could do to have a league is alter the game similar to 3v3 basketball. Or just do a tournament every year to generate interest by exposing people to the game, but keep costs and travel down.


They will not survive AND be self sustaining and profitable trying to be “the NHL as played by women”

AHL, ECHL, Junior leagues college etc. there’s plenty of men’s hockey ranging great quality game to cheap tickets available.

change enough so that it’s different product from NHL hockey, but still hockey.

I do not support the NHL propping up their own WNBA. I guess I’m not against it either, but I’m against the idea that they “owe” it or that they’re negatively viewed for not propping a league.


“Right to play the game” is not at all the same thing as the “right to earn a living playing a job you’d like just because you’d like it”.
There’s lower men’s leagues making $200 a week working multiple jobs... they equally “deserve” to be paid money just because they like the game.

I hope the women’s players get a regular league, and I certainly don’t mind the NHL/broadcasters help give them a platform, but funding a league is overkill.

The NHL subsidizing a women's league isn't charity, there are financial incentives in cultivating the women's market and there are imaginative ways to monetize some of these angles depending on what contract they work out.

I don't think the women's game suffers for being played 5v5 with regulation rules. I also don't think it can go about making money by copy-pasting the NHL's model. The big bucks in the major sports are in the broadcasting deals. I only have so much time to spend on hockey, and I already have a hockey team I'm invested in, so I'm not going to watch a women's league. I'm just not. It doesn't make sense. What I WOULD like to do is to spend a night at the rink and catch a good game without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year like I'd have to with the NHL. A women's league isn't going to be competitive in TV timeslots. But I think it could be quite successful at a more grassroots level. Make it a community fixture.

 

[Chips]

The NHL subsidizing a women's league isn't charity, there are financial incentives in cultivating the women's market and there are imaginative ways to monetize some of these angles depending on what contract they work out.

I don't think the women's game suffers for being played 5v5 with regulation rules. I also don't think it can go about making money by copy-pasting the NHL's model. The big bucks in the major sports are in the broadcasting deals. I only have so much time to spend on hockey, and I already have a hockey team I'm invested in, so I'm not going to watch a women's league. I'm just not. It doesn't make sense. What I WOULD like to do is to spend a night at the rink and catch a good game without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year like I'd have to with the NHL. A women's league isn't going to be competitive in TV timeslots. But I think it could be quite successful at a more grassroots level. Make it a community fixture.

True except they’d already be competing with cheap established hockey teams in more realistic hockey markets. Presumably they’d have less competition in a city with no hockey team, but why is there no hockey team there? I mean I guess they could do smaller cities/big towns in Canada and up northern US


I do see the prop up as charity, at least not so great for the players. I’m sure the owners will see some sort of value for themslves but I’d be surprised if propping up a league didn’t affect the salary cap paying money NHL players earned to other people


At the very least, I don’t think they should prop a league until after the current available women’s games hit some sort of threshold where you can realistically imagine them making any money to pay their own players within a few decades... WNBA is not self sustaining and the NHL isn’t that rich.

Most NHL players don’t make a comfortable lifetimes worth of money in their career. Especially the many many bottom 6 guys who come through for a few years. Even the guys who do earned that money.

 

[Warden of the North]

Ill be the first to admit I don't know the politics, but from an outsiders perspective they need to merge to stand a chance at real credibility and a partnership with the NHL

 

[boredmale]

If I am looking to maximize potential for a woman's league I basically make a Team Ontario, Team Atlantic, Team West and 2 USA teams, plus an "other". You might even fit in a Team Ontario 2 or something like that. Have them play the bulk of the games in Southern Ontario/Buffalo/Detroit basically to save on travelling and hope you can generate enough cash with a TV deal to make it work.

If this does work you might be able to have "special" games once or twice a season in places like Calgary, Vancouver, Montreal or Edmonton

 

[tarheelhockey]

FWIW, the birth and first decade of the NHL was basically a big refusal to co-exist with other pro leagues. They were simply the one that survived.

 

[jcs0218]

FWIW, the birth and first decade of the NHL was basically a big refusal to co-exist with other pro leagues. They were simply the one that survived.

The NHL definitely was a case of Charles Darwin's ideas.

It helped that they had Joe Malone to build the league around. He was the #1 finch in the land.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If you want to talk about the specific topic being offered here, you're free to.

If you want to derail the thread with your opinions on the relative quality of the women's professional game compared to the men's professional game, the door's over there - sorry.

 

[mouser]

I did not see a place to put this thread but i figure its important

Preface: First off I want what is best for the game and for it to continue to grow.

Watching Tim and Friends today (sportsnet show in canada)

Hearing Cassie Campbell state that the NWHL is not a true womens professional league is counter productive.
She states that it is not the PWHPA vs NWHL yet she went on to talk down towards it. They say that both leagues would survive but if either of them get the NHL sponsorship money we all know the other is doomed.
I can't speak to the NWHL but from what I understand there is a decently strong following in the US already.

I had friends in the CWHL, I remember them working 9-5s then driving to a game or practice every night. I completely respect the players sitting out for a unified league, but this one or the other culture is going to continue to destroy the game. All these Olympic athletes sitting out their primes for refusal to coexist is just a shame... I'm not sure what the solution is here, but both parties here are just as at fault (atleast thats what it looks like). Whats your take?


Edit, here is video

Would you or anyone else like to better summarize the conflict between the PWHPA, CWHL and NWHL so our forum readers can have an educated discussion without watching the media video?

In my experience, expecting everyone to watch a video to understand the topic at hand rarely leads to good discussion.

 

[MNNumbers]

I watched the video. It's a fairly simple pressure theme.

NHL needs to support women.
Why can't I play hockey? Why do I need another job? I should be able to just play.
We have shown there is a market for women's hockey.
NHL needs to do something.

Etc.

Claiming there is a market does NOT make a market. If there were a women's league, attendance would average 1000 a game (that might be harsh, but over a 25 game season, the interest by non-relative fans would dwindle).

Fact is, there is no sustainable market for a women's hockey league in which the players make even 50K a year. Just think about that. 50K a year for players would be about 1.2M in salaries. Considering you have to staff arenas, you might need 3M in ticket sales. 26 game season..that equals 100K in tickets every game. I can't see a situation where that happens.

What they want is a subsidy. And, only because they are women.

Now, it will probably happen, because if, a few years after COVID, NHL teams haven't moved on this yet, there will tremendous social pressure applied, and the NHL may end with no choice but to subsidize a women's league.

But there is no economic argument for one.

 

[cliffclaven]

I watched the video. It's a fairly simple pressure theme.

NHL needs to support women.
Why can't I play hockey? Why do I need another job? I should be able to just play.
We have shown there is a market for women's hockey.
NHL needs to do something.

Etc.

Claiming there is a market does NOT make a market. If there were a women's league, attendance would average 1000 a game (that might be harsh, but over a 25 game season, the interest by non-relative fans would dwindle).

Fact is, there is no sustainable market for a women's hockey league in which the players make even 50K a year. Just think about that. 50K a year for players would be about 1.2M in salaries. Considering you have to staff arenas, you might need 3M in ticket sales. 26 game season..that equals 100K in tickets every game. I can't see a situation where that happens.

What they want is a subsidy. And, only because they are women.

Now, it will probably happen, because if, a few years after COVID, NHL teams haven't on this yet, there will tremendous social pressure applied, and the NHL may end with no choice but to subsidize a women's league.

But there is no economic argument for one.

Correct. The truth sucks to some people. There is no sustainable market for women’s hockey. Thats the reality.

 

[Spydey629]

I think the world would be better off with the NHL buying the NWHL, expanding it to roughly 8-10 teams, pending which owners want in on it (or outside ownership, if need be).

spit balling the math, an average salary of $50k/year + benefits x 25-person roster works out to a $20-30MM operating cost for the league, per season.

That gets offset by tickets, TV, and sponsorship, and yes, would probably be a net loss for the NHL each season, but most likely not that big of one as the league begins to grow.

 

[Burke the Legend]

People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front. Really have to get it together

I think the world would be better off with the NHL buying the NWHL, expanding it to roughly 8-10 teams, pending which owners want in on it (or outside ownership, if need be).

They won't because then they would be exposed to massive legal liability. We have seen all these lawsuits with USA hockey and US soccer over preferential treatment that (higher revenue) mens teams get. NHL owners would get questions about why they are being sexist in lesser pay & benefits for NWHL players vs NHL. Like they really need that for supporting a money losing league that nobody watches.

There's also a question of how well the money is being spent. There's also the limited budget factpr so if the objective is to grow the game what impact does women's pro support make vs other areas like minority outreach, local arena financing, or support programs for getting local youth leagues off the ground in underserved hockey areas.

 

[nickp91]

Women's hockey is good quality hockey thank you to those who have paved the road and continue to pave for the now and future

 

[LadyStanley]

Would it help a NWHL to be affiliated with a NHL team?

Yes. Marketing synergies. Cross promotion sponsorships. Getting the word to NHL fans/STHs for exposure.


But the inequality of leagues (salary of a female player vs male player) is concerning. (Not even addressing the issues of endorsements, for the time being.)

Tennis had Billy Jean King to help get women seen as capable and providing quality product (worth/prizes about the same as men in tournaments).
US Women's soccer team had to threaten boycott/strike for better pay even though they played more, achieved more and had as good of ratings as the men.
LPGA faces issues of not even being able to play on some (private) courses compared to the PGA.

WNBA does get support from NBA teams (WNBA Aces notwithstanding - they do not have a NBA team in market), and gets promotion that way.

Equestrian sports are the only sport were men and women compete equally. Some of the top competitors are women, internationally as well as in the US/North America.


But back to hockey.

Female Hockey Olympians had to (threaten to) strike to get US Hockey to even pay a better wage.


Title IX does not apply equally at all levels of sport. Especially the "pro" ranks. But as seen above, women have been pushing for more equitable/equal pay, when warranted. (Heck, the US women's soccer team probably should earn more than the men.)

Would female hockey players like to play for seven or eight-digit salaries? Sure. But the economics don't support that. No (national) TV deal, and only a handful of pro teams in North America. They don't have large numbers of fans (don't always play in the 15k+ arenas)...YET.

Will societal pressure get the NHL to actually take a NWHL under its umbrella? With the NHL and NHLPA having a 50-50 revenue split, where would any funds (required to) be allocated to help with bolstering NWHL salaries come from? It's not like all 32 NHL teams/ownership have unlimited resources.

 

[SenSaddest]

Would you or anyone else like to better summarize the conflict between the PWHPA, CWHL and NWHL so our forum readers can have an educated discussion without watching the media video?

In my experience, expecting everyone to watch a video to understand the topic at hand rarely leads to good discussion.

The heads of both the CWHL and NWHL heads refused to merger. The CWHL was bleeding money and had to fold. NWHL stands today. Some top CWHL players went but many of the Olympic girls refused leading to the creation of the PWHPA. But the bad blood from the earlier talks still exists between them. The NWHL is only able to exist today because they pay players a reasonable amount based on what the league is making. Until there's one dog in the fight the NHL wont commit and thus the actual money in Womens hockey will remain small. (Despite the drama the NWHL is slowly building its strong foothold in the US as they are constantly playing , unlike the PWHA and they expanded this year to their first canadan team)

 

[JMCx4]

Would it help a NWHL to be affiliated with a NHL team?

Pegula Sports & Entertainment (Buffalo Sabres' ownership) also owns the NWHL's Buffalo Beauts. The Minnesota Wild assisted the NWHL's Minnesota White Caps to get operations underway their first season. The NJ Devils had an early partnership with the NWHL's Metropolitan Riveters. The Boston Bruins have a partnership with the NWHL's Boston Pride to develop women's hockey in the state. The NY Rangers organization provided moral support to the NWHL's Riveters & the Connecticut Whale during the "bubble hockey" season & playoffs in Lake Placid early this year. So there have been varying degrees of NHL "help" for NWHL teams in the League's 6 seasons, the greatest by far being in Buffalo.

 

[golfortennis]

The NHL subsidizing a women's league isn't charity, there are financial incentives in cultivating the women's market and there are imaginative ways to monetize some of these angles depending on what contract they work out.

I don't think the women's game suffers for being played 5v5 with regulation rules. I also don't think it can go about making money by copy-pasting the NHL's model. The big bucks in the major sports are in the broadcasting deals. I only have so much time to spend on hockey, and I already have a hockey team I'm invested in, so I'm not going to watch a women's league. I'm just not. It doesn't make sense. What I WOULD like to do is to spend a night at the rink and catch a good game without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars a year like I'd have to with the NHL. A women's league isn't going to be competitive in TV timeslots. But I think it could be quite successful at a more grassroots level. Make it a community fixture.

So I have been part of some discussions about the LPGA Tour. Discussions are similar, and the viewership is brought up, but no one ever wants to address the elephant in the room: women don't watch women's sports. If they did, none of these discussions would happen, because the ratings/support would be there. They will watch men's sports, but not women's. I'm not arguing why that is, just that it is. So if a number of women are already watching men's sports, what makes you believe there would be more women, who don't watch women's sports now, suddenly watching the NHL because they are subsidizing a women's league?

 

[Dale Gribble]

So, these women want the NHL fund and run a female League like a charity ? Because, that's what it sounds like.

I think a select few would take issue if the NHL got involved, but to fund it the way these women want is unrealistic. Sure the NBA and Euro Men's Soccer teams bleed money on their Women's Leagues, but that's not what I'd call a "sustainable" business model. Ms. Spooner in particular brings up how she trains just as hard as the men do, so she should be able just play hockey and get paid, but she overlooks that the Entertainment Industry pays based on what you bring in. As an example, NLL players work 9-5 jobs, and while the League does pay them the average salary in the NLL is around $35k USD currently - for years rookies would only make $5-8k tops. The revenue just wasn't there to pay them $35k+ at the time, and as of right now I can't see the revenue being there to support $50k wages for the women.

Lots of entitlement in the video segment, no real talk of how to actually run it aside from the NHL taking over and paying everyone salaries simply because "it's time" or the "right thing to do".

 

[tornadowarning33]

Hilary Knight made similar comments a couple of years ago. "Glorified beer league" is how she referred to the NWHL. This even though the top two all-time scorers for the NWHL when the PWHPA came into being still play in that league. Do you really have that much credibility when the two best players in your league aren't on your side? Not to mention that there have been multiple PWHPA->NWHL defections in the last two years.

Even if the PWHPA "wins" in the long run by taking the NWHL down, they would do so at the expense of their peers' jobs. How do they expect to have good locker room relationships with those women if that's how the situation ends up shaking out?

 

[TJL48]

Hilary Knight made similar comments a couple of years ago. "Glorified beer league" is how she referred to the NWHL. This even though the top two all-time scorers for the NWHL when the PWHPA came into being still play in that league. Do you really have that much credibility when the two best players in your league aren't on your side? Not to mention that there have been multiple PWHPA->NWHL defections in the last two years.

Even if the PWHPA "wins" in the long run by taking the NWHL down, they would do so at the expense of their peers' jobs. How do they expect to have good locker room relationships with those women if that's how the situation ends up shaking out?

That is one of the things I never understood about the PWHPA. From everything I have read the NWHL pays the women the best they can. They are trying to grow the women's game and salaries along with it. The league just doesn't make much money. The women of the PWHPA decided that was not good enough, and for the good of the game they sat out. Also began actively crapping on the NWHL. They chose to actively hurt the womens game they claim to care so much about, all because the NHL said if there was no women's professional league they would look into it. The NHL didn't say they would do something about it. They said they would look into it. That is the hypocrisy that blows my mind. If you cared so much about women's hockey you would be pushing to make the one professional league in North America better, and help it grow. Or at the very least not try to actively work against it.

 

[hanshin44]

That is one of the things I never understood about the PWHPA. From everything I have read the NWHL pays the women the best they can. They are trying to grow the women's game and salaries along with it. The league just doesn't make much money. The women of the PWHPA decided that was not good enough, and for the good of the game they sat out. Also began actively crapping on the NWHL. They chose to actively hurt the womens game they claim to care so much about, all because the NHL said if there was no women's professional league they would look into it. The NHL didn't say they would do something about it. They said they would look into it. That is the hypocrisy that blows my mind. If you cared so much about women's hockey you would be pushing to make the one professional league in North America better, and help it grow. Or at the very least not try to actively work against it.

What exactly did they expect when they formed a player's union for a league in it's infancy in a sport that has little to no popularity in the United States?

 

[tornadowarning33]

That is one of the things I never understood about the PWHPA. From everything I have read the NWHL pays the women the best they can. They are trying to grow the women's game and salaries along with it. The league just doesn't make much money. The women of the PWHPA decided that was not good enough, and for the good of the game they sat out. Also began actively crapping on the NWHL. They chose to actively hurt the womens game they claim to care so much about, all because the NHL said if there was no women's professional league they would look into it. The NHL didn't say they would do something about it. They said they would look into it. That is the hypocrisy that blows my mind. If you cared so much about women's hockey you would be pushing to make the one professional league in North America better, and help it grow. Or at the very least not try to actively work against it.

It's hilariously ironic that, instead of leveraging the union to continue nurturing the NWHL which has by and large been built by the women (with some help, no doubt), they're simply using it as a means to destroy everything they've worked to build so that the men will swoop in and build something better for them. But they're not even asking the men nicely. They have to basically guilt them into doing it so as to avoid appearing weak.

 

[MNNumbers]

It's completely a disease of our culture. Not very many generations ago, you had to find work that actually produced something, and your paycheck somehow reflected the measure in which you helped that product to have value. Sports grew out of the idea that entertainment has value, so sporting people were paid according to how much entertainment value there was in their sport in general, and in their team and/or their own performance individually. This all made logical sense.

The US women's soccer people sued for better compensation from the US soccer governing body, and they were right, actually. Because the women actually won, and international soccer is basically about 2 global tournaments (World Cup and Olympics), the women's popularity was much better than they were being compensated for. Also, in some way, that was a representation of the nation, so equal rights apply.

What has happened now is that, within the free market, there is a demand for equality regardless of the benefits which the particular person brings to the situation. Employees wish to be paid just for being there. There is not as much "pride in my work" spirit as there was a generation or two ago. So, the link between value and pay has diminished as it is viewed by society in general.

This leaves an opening for organizations like PWHPA to arise. Their line is, of course, that's is somehow not 'fair' that men can play a game and get paid, while women can't make a living doing the same thing. The expectation of 'fairness' totally ignores the market side of the equation. This would be fine in a "US Olympic Team" arrangement. It would be fine on a college campus. Neither of those are situation which require value back from entertainment customers.

However, in professional sports, the situation is NOT that of a non-profit organization. At its foundation, sports is entertainment. That means that whatever game is being played, there is no value if no one wants to watch it. People don't go to football games or basketball games thinking "I want to make a donation to the players' union." They go to be entertained. It's about the experience.

Ignoring this creates an artificial world and an artificial society.

Beam me up Scotty.....