If Hockey had a real World Cup, would that be the best way to grow the game?

[Voight]

David Levin, who was a top prospect a coupe years ago, had to move from Israel to Canada for his hockey career since there were only one or two rinks in all of Tel Aviv. Its an example of how little popularity hockey has in most countries.

 

[NyQuil]

What a pipe dream. Hockey can't get equality amongst a dozen countries, let alone what you've suggested.

I honestly believe if hockey wants a reasonable world cup, then it needs to condense teams not add. The fact that only 6 or so teams can win, and with half of those teams being a very rare occurrence, does add to the competitiveness or excitement. Hockey isn't as big as other sports and is a strictly winter sport. It's also expensive to get started up. It's just not going to take off in countries that can't support its requirements.

I'd like to see a tourney/cup set up like:

Canada
USA
Russia
Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark)
Rest of Europe (Czech, Slovakia, Germany)

Then we'd see some stacked teams with some balance competition, rather than some poor countries with 3 NHL players get slaughtered by teams with the NHLs best.

Have each team play each other once and knock off the 5th place team. 1v4, 2v3 and winners go to the gold match, and loser's bronze.

Switzerland beat Canada at the best-on-best 2006 Torino Olympics.

 

[Hisch13r]

Nah

 

[WatchfulElm]

I'd be more interested to see a competition in which we make the top nations weaker, to increase parity. For example, Canada could have 6 teams : BC, Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, Atlantic & territories. We could probably divide the USA and Russia in 2 as well. That's 10 teams already. Add Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Germany, and you suddenly have a pretty competitive 16-teams tournament. And I'd be glued to my TV watching this unfolds.

And just for fun, here's what Team Quebec would look like :

F
Jonathan Huberdeau - Patrice Bergeron - David Perron
Jonathan Marchessault - Pierre-Luc Dubois - Anthony Mantha
Alexis Lafrenière - Phillip Danault - Anthony Beauvillier
Max Comtois - Frédérick Gaudreau - Mathieu Joseph
Extras : Yanni Gourde, Nicolas Roy, William Carrier

D
Thomas Chabot - Kris Letang
Samuel Girard - David Savard
Mike Matheson - Alexandre Carrier
Extras : Marc-Édouard Vlasic, Jérémy Lauzon

G
Marc-André Fleury
Samuel Montembeault
Louis Domingue

 

[Suntouchable13]

Stop with this “growing the game crap”. They are having enough problems generating attention in the USA, let alone Turkmenistan. I think it’s fine the way it is. Why does it have to be like soccer?

 

[Pink Mist]

Just put NHL players in the olympics and you'll grow the game internationally

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

Olympics are a great way to keep the game strong in the current markets.

Growing it outside NA and Europe is just not ever going to happen. It's not soccer, where the cost to play a $3 ball shared amongst 20 kids.

NHL's focus should be not losing out in their current markets.

 

[The Marquis]

Hockey doesn’t need a World Cup. It’s a joke and a money grab and the NHL is the real best on best.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Growing the game?

You want to make more money?

Do you actually think it will be as big as Football, or even Cricket?

 

[powerstuck]

Major issue is while in soccer you could name at least 10 to 15 countries able to fight for a championship every 4 years...in hockey you can make 3 solid guesses and bet on 4th-5th candidates, but after that, the quality of opponents drops drastically.

 

[biturbo19]

Out of curiosity, anyone want to take a stab at what team sport is the best comparable to hockey in terms of international parity....

Would it be baseball?

You have 5 teams or so that can win it in

USA
Japan
S Korea
Dominican Republic
Cuba

Then you have 5 or 6 more teams that aren't a complete embarrassment on the international stage in

Mexico
Canada
Taiwan
Puerto Rico
Panama
Venezuela

And then you have a bunch of losers. That to me is way better than basketball considering only the US can win. But parity in volleyball is probably better than hockey (can our fellow posters from the Netherlands confirm?). Rugby is up there. Cricket isn't. No none cares about handball or waterpolo.

What sport internationally is the closest thing to hockey would you say?

I'd say, basically just look at any other sort of very expensive, "high barriers to entry" niche winter sport.



But then, some people say they no can believe, Jamaica, we have a bobsled team.

So...maybe hockey just stands alone.

 

[ViD]

To grow the game of hockey they might start by letting Russia and Belarus back

 

[apparentlyclueless]

There's a higher skill cap in ice hockey than kicking a ball around on a plot of grass...and that's okay.

This is such an asinine take. The difference in popularity between hockey and soccer has nothing to do with the skill needed to play each sport. One could actually argue that to make it to the top in soccer (globally) actually takes more work/talent because there's simply so much more competition.

On topic, I don't see how this kind of tournament would be viable. Just bring back the Olympics, that's the World Cup equivalent in hockey.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

Out of curiosity, anyone want to take a stab at what team sport is the best comparable to hockey in terms of international parity....

Would it be baseball?

You have 5 teams or so that can win it in

USA
Japan
S Korea
Dominican Republic
Cuba

Then you have 5 or 6 more teams that aren't a complete embarrassment on the international stage in

Mexico
Canada
Taiwan
Puerto Rico
Panama
Venezuela

And then you have a bunch of losers. That to me is way better than basketball considering only the US can win. But parity in volleyball is probably better than hockey (can our fellow posters from the Netherlands confirm?). Rugby is up there. Cricket isn't. No none cares about handball or waterpolo.

What sport internationally is the closest thing to hockey would you say?

Low key appreciate Puerto Rico being listed as an independent nation here

 

[TomppaKoo]

I'd be more interested to see a competition in which we make the top nations weaker, to increase parity. For example, Canada could have 6 teams : BC, Alberta, the Prairies, Ontario, Québec, Atlantic & territories. We could probably divide the USA and Russia in 2 as well. That's 10 teams already. Add Sweden, Finland, Czechia, Slovakia, Switzerland and Germany, and you suddenly have a pretty competitive 16-teams tournament. And I'd be glued to my TV watching this unfolds.

And just for fun, here's what Team Quebec would look like :

F
Jonathan Huberdeau - Patrice Bergeron - David Perron
Jonathan Marchessault - Pierre-Luc Dubois - Anthony Mantha
Alexis Lafrenière - Phillip Danault - Anthony Beauvillier
Max Comtois - Frédérick Gaudreau - Mathieu Joseph
Extras : Yanni Gourde, Nicolas Roy, William Carrier

D
Thomas Chabot - Kris Letang
Samuel Girard - David Savard
Mike Matheson - Alexandre Carrier
Extras : Marc-Édouard Vlasic, Jérémy Lauzon

G
Marc-André Fleury
Samuel Montembeault
Louis Domingue

Typical Canadian arrogance. In a 1 game tournament any of Finland, Sweden, Russia, USA can beat team Canada

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

Soccer requires a ball and a net, can be played virtually anywhere on earth, and has simple enough rules that translate across borders, countries, cultures. It's very easy to just pick up a ball and kick it around. Hockey... ehhhh... not so much.

If you want to grow the game, you need to go to where it isn't and build your base and institutions. I do love the international appeal that hockey currently has and I think how that influences the game is really fascinating. But it's pretty limited to a handful of countries on a professional level. In the case of the NHL, I'd absolutely be focused on growing the game domestically and attracting new audiences in North America.

Outside of Arizona, the NHL has done a pretty decent job of establishing the game in the south. I'd keep iteratively working that a bit to strengthen the sport's support system. Maybe try a few things out of left field like hosting a couple games in Mexico or bringing the game to more places in the NHL's backyard.

 

[Mez]

What a pipe dream. Hockey can't get equality amongst a dozen countries, let alone what you've suggested.

I honestly believe if hockey wants a reasonable world cup, then it needs to condense teams not add. The fact that only 6 or so teams can win, and with half of those teams being a very rare occurrence, does add to the competitiveness or excitement. Hockey isn't as big as other sports and is a strictly winter sport. It's also expensive to get started up. It's just not going to take off in countries that can't support its requirements.

I'd like to see a tourney/cup set up like:

Canada
USA
Russia
Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark)
Rest of Europe (Czech, Slovakia, Germany)

Then we'd see some stacked teams with some balance competition, rather than some poor countries with 3 NHL players get slaughtered by teams with the NHLs best.

Have each team play each other once and knock off the 5th place team. 1v4, 2v3 and winners go to the gold match, and loser's bronze.

I like this idea. Maybe have a world team that is everyone else not included?

 

[SwedishFire]

With the World Cup going on right now, I always wondered what an equivalent in hockey would look like and do for the game. Growing the game is something we often criticize the NHL for not being good at doing and the patheitc attempt at creating a "world" cup with 6 teams and two continental teams that were created under weird formats is just not it. If they created a 48-country tournament (like the football world cup plans on doing by 2026), would that be the greatest way to generate real growth in this beautiful sport of hockey? Many countries will get to see their teams perform on a big stage against the world's best and hopefully it'll inspire future generations. Going by IIHF rankings, this is how the event will look like:

First Round:

(1) Finland, (2) Canada, (3) Russia, (4) USA, (5) Sweden, (6) Czechia, (7) Switzerland, (8) Slovakia, (9) Germany, (10) Denmark, (11) Latvia, (12) Norway, (13) France, (14) Belarus, (15) Austria, and (16) Kazakhstan will all get a "bye" in the first round. Other first round matchups include,

(17) Italy vs (48) Turkmenistan
(18) Great Britain vs (47) Hong Kong
(19) Slovenia vs (46) Thailand
(20) South Korea vs (45) North Korea
(21) Hungary vs (44) Luxembourg
(22) Poland vs (43) UAE
(23) Lithuania vs (42) New Zealand
(24) Romania vs (41) Georgia
(25) Japan vs (40) Belgium
(26) Ukraine vs (39) Taiwan
(27) China vs (38) Turkey
(28) Estonia vs (37) Bulgaria
(29) Netherlands vs (36) Australia
(30) Serbia vs (35) Mexico
(31) Croatia vs (34) Iceland
(32) Spain vs (33) Israel

Second Round:

(1) Finland vs (32) Spain/(33) Israel
(2) Canada vs (31) Croatia/(34) Iceland
(3) Russia vs (30) Serbia/(35) Mexico
(4) USA vs (29) Netherlands/(36) Australia
(5) Sweden vs (28) Estonia/(37) Bulgaria
(6) Czechia vs (27) China/(38) Turkey
(7) Switzerland vs (26) Ukraine/(39) Taiwan
(8) Slovakia vs (25) Japan/ (40) Belgium
(9) Germany vs (24) Romania/(41) Georgia
(10) Denmark vs (23) Lithuania/(42) New Zealand
(11) Latvia vs (22) Poland/(43) UAE
(12) Norway vs (21) Hungary/(44) Luxembourg
(13) France vs (20) South Korea/(45) North Korea
(14) Belarus vs (19) Slovenia/(46) Thailand
(15) Austria vs (18) United Kingdom/(47) Hong Kong
(16) Kazakhstan vs (17) Italy/(48) Turkemnistan

Round of 16:

1 vs 16
2 vs 15
3 vs 14
4 vs 13
5 vs 12
6 vs 11
7 vs 10
8 vs 9

And then Quarterfinals, Semis, and Finals, I think you know how the rest of this hypothetical events this works. I feel like this type of tournament could be a great way to introduce competitive hockey to many countries. I know the end result will be the same with Canada or USA or Russia or one of the top nations winning but it wouldn't be about these big countries but rather than small hockey nations, similar to how imo, I always saw the football WC as being an event for the smaller footballing nations to showcase their talent to the world and grow it back in their homeland.

What are your thoughts?

Until -84 world cup had only 16 teams, 98, world cup had only 24 teams.
Then they added to 32 teams finally. So there has been a needed growth before expaning teams into the tourment. Its 48 teams because its the biggest sport in the world.

Therr are like 10 teams that are a to b class. After that the level of competition dies hard.

The most interresting way would be a first round with exceptions for can, usa, rus, swe ,fin, slovak, czech, swiss, germany.
They are the top tier (maybe not germany, but you get it.. stutzle, draisaotl, seider).
Directly qualified to semi round.

I like though the version of the best 3rds, it opens up for underdogs to claim some success if they have two good games.
24 team world cup/canada cup would be great for world growth of hockey.

6 groups x 4 teams. 1 and 2 goes to next round, 4 best 3rds goes too.

Could be like this

Group A
Canada
Belarus
France
Poland

Group B
USA
Norway
Kazhakstan
Great Britain

Group C
Russia
Denmark
Latvia
Hungary

Group D
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Austria

Group E
Finland
Slovakia
Ukraine
China

Group F
Swiss
Czech
Slovenia
Japan

Even if I would love to see Netherlands, Spain, Iceland, Australia, Israel, South Africa etc. I get that the level of competion would be awful. China is in for me for the future growth, but probably another team would squezee them out.

With the World Cup going on right now, I always wondered what an equivalent in hockey would look like and do for the game. Growing the game is something we often criticize the NHL for not being good at doing and the patheitc attempt at creating a "world" cup with 6 teams and two continental teams that were created under weird formats is just not it. If they created a 48-country tournament (like the football world cup plans on doing by 2026), would that be the greatest way to generate real growth in this beautiful sport of hockey? Many countries will get to see their teams perform on a big stage against the world's best and hopefully it'll inspire future generations. Going by IIHF rankings, this is how the event will look like:

First Round:

(1) Finland, (2) Canada, (3) Russia, (4) USA, (5) Sweden, (6) Czechia, (7) Switzerland, (8) Slovakia, (9) Germany, (10) Denmark, (11) Latvia, (12) Norway, (13) France, (14) Belarus, (15) Austria, and (16) Kazakhstan will all get a "bye" in the first round. Other first round matchups include,

(17) Italy vs (48) Turkmenistan
(18) Great Britain vs (47) Hong Kong
(19) Slovenia vs (46) Thailand
(20) South Korea vs (45) North Korea
(21) Hungary vs (44) Luxembourg
(22) Poland vs (43) UAE
(23) Lithuania vs (42) New Zealand
(24) Romania vs (41) Georgia
(25) Japan vs (40) Belgium
(26) Ukraine vs (39) Taiwan
(27) China vs (38) Turkey
(28) Estonia vs (37) Bulgaria
(29) Netherlands vs (36) Australia
(30) Serbia vs (35) Mexico
(31) Croatia vs (34) Iceland
(32) Spain vs (33) Israel

Second Round:

(1) Finland vs (32) Spain/(33) Israel
(2) Canada vs (31) Croatia/(34) Iceland
(3) Russia vs (30) Serbia/(35) Mexico
(4) USA vs (29) Netherlands/(36) Australia
(5) Sweden vs (28) Estonia/(37) Bulgaria
(6) Czechia vs (27) China/(38) Turkey
(7) Switzerland vs (26) Ukraine/(39) Taiwan
(8) Slovakia vs (25) Japan/ (40) Belgium
(9) Germany vs (24) Romania/(41) Georgia
(10) Denmark vs (23) Lithuania/(42) New Zealand
(11) Latvia vs (22) Poland/(43) UAE
(12) Norway vs (21) Hungary/(44) Luxembourg
(13) France vs (20) South Korea/(45) North Korea
(14) Belarus vs (19) Slovenia/(46) Thailand
(15) Austria vs (18) United Kingdom/(47) Hong Kong
(16) Kazakhstan vs (17) Italy/(48) Turkemnistan

Round of 16:

1 vs 16
2 vs 15
3 vs 14
4 vs 13
5 vs 12
6 vs 11
7 vs 10
8 vs 9

And then Quarterfinals, Semis, and Finals, I think you know how the rest of this hypothetical events this works. I feel like this type of tournament could be a great way to introduce competitive hockey to many countries. I know the end result will be the same with Canada or USA or Russia or one of the top nations winning but it wouldn't be about these big countries but rather than small hockey nations, similar to how imo, I always saw the football WC as being an event for the smaller footballing nations to showcase their talent to the world and grow it back in their homeland.

What are your thoughts?

Until -84 world cup had only 16 teams, 98, world cup had only 24 teams.
Then they added to 32 teams finally. So there has been a needed growth before expaning teams into the tourment. Its 48 teams because its the biggest sport in the world.

Therr are like 10 teams that are a to b class. After that the level of competition dies hard.

The most interresting way would be a first round with exceptions for can, usa, rus, swe ,fin, slovak, czech, swiss, germany.
They are the top tier (maybe not germany, but you get it.. stutzle, draisaotl, seider).
Directly qualified to semi round.

I like though the version of the best 3rds, it opens up for underdogs to claim some success if they have two good games.
24 team world cup/canada cup would be great for world growth of hockey.

6 groups x 4 teams. 1 and 2 goes to next round, 4 best 3rds goes too.

Could be like this

Group A
Canada
Belarus
France
Poland

Group B
USA
Norway
Kazhakstan
Great Britain

Group C
Russia
Denmark
Latvia
Hungary

Group D
Sweden
Germany
Italy
Austria

Group E
Finland
Slovakia
Ukraine
China

Group F
Swiss
Czech
Slovenia
Japan

Even if I would love to see Netherlands, Spain, Iceland, Australia, Israel, South Africa etc. I get that the level of competion would be awful. China is in for me for the future growth, but probably another team would squezee them out.

David Levin, who was a top prospect a coupe years ago, had to move from Israel to Canada for his hockey career since there were only one or two rinks in all of Tel Aviv. Its an example of how little popularity hockey has in most countries.

Was he a legit prospect developed i israel? In that case, thats respect. Needs a lot of hard work for that to be real.

 

[tfwnogf]

Picture this, Gary. Hockey in Africa. That's right. It'll be like Arizona, except an even bigger potential fanbase.

 

[CBJx614]

I'd say, basically just look at any other sort of very expensive, "high barriers to entry" niche winter sport.



But then, some people say they no can believe, Jamaica, we have a bobsled team.

So...maybe hockey just stands alone.

Not only is it a high barrier to entry, it's not a sport that someone can just pickup and excel at in a year. You need a lifetime of dedication and specialized training to be able to compete at the highest level. Combined with the resources it takes to be operate a rink, it's just not feasible for a large part of the world.



The Olympics really were the world cup for hockey, at least that's how I imagine most players see it.

 

[GreenLine]

Not everything needs to grow. Hockey has a very limited appeal globally and that's not going to change by adding more non-competitive teams to a tournament.

 

[kook10]

I'd like to see a summertime Rucker Park type tournament: private tournament-specific teams with players from anywhere, short rosters, single elimination, huge cash prize.

 

[Mickey Marner]

2006 Olympics format, the only one that got it right. Top-8 teams on the IIHF rankings automatically make it. Round robin tournaments to decide the remain 4 teams, highest ranked teams host the tournaments. Then the 12 teams are divided into two 6-team round robin divisions, top-4 advance to quarter finals. Finals can be best of three, but I don't really care either way. Played every four years during summer Olympic years.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Only if it was in Qatar, lol

 

[kevsh]

Olympics > World Cup

And it's not close. The Winter Olympics in Beijing averaged 11M primetime viewers in the U.S., alone and that was way off the average, and men's hockey is one of the showcase sports.

No World Cup of hockey will ever be in the stratosphere of those numbers. The only way hockey could get more global reach was if it was a Summer sport or changed its name to football.