There has to be growth and momentum. In a global market, the sport needs to compete to sustain itself. You need widespread interest, a large talent base, and money for it to perpetuate. There's more youth playing soccer in Canada than hockey, did you know that?
Hockey is a niche sport to begin with. Most (to put it mildly) of the best athletes globally play other sports. Top American athletes elect for football, basketball, baseball, even soccer now before hockey. We need The Leon Draisaitls and Austin Matthews and Alex Barkovs. We need fans to show up and to care for there to be a pro league. There has to be millions to be made in order to incentivize people to dedicate their lives to the sport.
So if Hockey stayed relatively static with X million fans it wouldn't be sustainable?
I just have a hard time understanding that I guess.
10 million people across the continent love and watch hockey for example. If in 10 years that number is 10 million then the sport is not sustainable?
I can see the argument that if you're not growing your shrinking I guess. But staying relatively stable over the years I fail to see how that's so terrible.
Like I get it from an owners and players in a capitalist's stand point.
From the fans standpoint it's already known hockey is a niche game.. it always will be. There's nothing wrong with that. It's expensive and requires ice to play, none of that is going to change.
More fans to me means higher ticket prices. I'd almost prefer most fans buggered off and watched soccer so the game is more affordable to go and watch. Not going to hurt my feelings if owners and players make less millions.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16344461/633A692F_27BA_4FBE_A847_23C8230A36F0.jpeg)
