The NHL gains more than it loses when players participate in the Olympics

[simplysincere*]

As the title states.

Firstly, the NHL gets exposure through its players that participate. These players are not just representing their countries, but also the companies they work for (i.e., the NHL).

Secondly, when the best players get to play in the Olympics, it's good for the sport of Hockey, and it grows the sport of Hockey. If anything, it is that much more important for NHL'ers to show up in non-traditional hockey markets, such as South Korea, and Asia to a greater extent. Anything that grows hockey, grows the NHL.

The more regions that discover hockey, the bigger it'll grow, and there is only gains to be had when the sport grows.

The loss is very small, since it only happens every 4 years, and at most, teams play 6-7 games. Sure it sucks to see players like Tavares go down at the Olympics, but when we look at the bigger picture, the gains dwarf the losses.

Click to read more...

 

[JJTT]

League itself gains exposure but the teams don't get anything in return for injured players.

 

[chauron]

If the popularity of the Ice Hockey would rise in USA (vs. NFL, MLB, NBA, MLS) it'd naturally be awesome for the teams aswell. They'd receive more money from sales and get more spectators to the arenas.

ps.

Does anyone have up to date popularity ratings, where i could compare NHL vs those other leagues, especially MLS.

 

[hirawl]

Absolutely. Also the injury aspect is blown out of perspective.

I don't have any data, but I strongly assume that NHL IR list is significantly shorter after an Olympic break than what it is before that. Sure any player going down in the Olympics is bound to be an important one, but still. Injuries are part of the business in the NHL and those happening in the Olympics should not be looked at any differently. They happen while doing what the players normally do for living and at which they are among the very best in the world. It's not like they go out parkouring blind folded and drunk.

 

[FuriousSenator]

'Sigh' I hate these threads so much....

The problem ISN'T that players might get injured or that it screws up the NHL schedule, the problem is that the money involved (advertising, TV revenues etc...) in an Olympic best on best tournament ISN'T going to the NHL, it's going to the IOC (or some other subsidiary).

Why on earth should the NHL lend out its players for a televised best on best tournament worth potentially BILLIONS and not be able to recoup one cent of profit from it (other than extremely vague assertions of 'growing the game')?

What motive is there (other than national pride) to send the players to the Olympics, when it would enormously more profitable for the NHL to put on its OWN best on best tournament (think World Cup of Hockey) and rake in all the cash therein.

From a business perspective, it makes little to no sense to give the theoretical competition (IOC) a helping hand by sending YOUR players to THEM. The NHL would be absolutely no questions-asked best served by hosting a World Cup of Hockey on its own and completely ignoring the Olympics from now on.

Now whether from a fan's perspective this is for the best is questionable, but that's the thing about business, it doesn't take that sort of thing into consideration.

 

[FuriousSenator]

As the title states.

Firstly, the NHL gets exposure through its players that participate. These players are not just representing their countries, but also the companies they work for (i.e., the NHL).

Secondly, when the best players get to play in the Olympics, it's good for the sport of Hockey, and it grows the sport of Hockey. If anything, it is that much more important for NHL'ers to show up in non-traditional hockey markets, such as South Korea, and Asia to a greater extent. Anything that grows hockey, grows the NHL.

The more regions that discover hockey, the bigger it'll grow, and there is only gains to be had when the sport grows.

The loss is very small, since it only happens every 4 years, and at most, teams play 6-7 games. Sure it sucks to see players like Tavares go down at the Olympics, but when we look at the bigger picture, the gains dwarf the losses.

Everything you've said up there is blah blah blah vague vague vague. A business like the NHL deals in real dollars and cents, not 'growing the game' nonsense. Business doesn't care about 'the game' or South Korean hockey. If the Olympics is so good for non-traditional markets, why haven't we seen a quantum leap in Asian hockey since Nagano (arguably one of the best hockey tournaments in history, hosted in an Asian time zone)? Sounds like a terrible investment to me! As for hearing the word 'NHL' beside a player's name, nobody cares. Worse, it doesn't translate into real business in any quantifiable sense. Are these people suddenly buying Erik Karlsson Senators jerseys because they saw him at the Olympics? As someone who sees a lot of Senators news, I can tell you this is definitely not the case and in fact, global Sens merchandise sales are down.

Tell me, why wouldn't an NHL hosted (and therefore profiting) world tournament of best on best be 'growing the game'? This would be the best situation for the NHL because it would get all the TV and ad revenues (something that is real dollars and cents) in addition to the vague statements of gain you have made above.

Honestly, you people need to realize that hockey is a business through and through. If you think there is any actual profit in the NHL sending their players to the Olympics (especially compared to the alternatives), you need to read an economics textbook.

 

[Xokkeu]

The reason the nhl continues to go to the Olympics is simply because the players want it and to a lesser extent the fans want it. It's mostly because the players want it. If the players didn't care, the tournament probably would have ended with Salt Lake City. There is some long term benefit to the game of hockey and eventually the nhl's bottom line, but it's so vague, hypothetical and far down the line that it's not going to factor in convincing the owners that they will directly profit from it.

The nhl will an should hold out on the IOC for more access to their players and insist on better insurance coverage, but if they are going to go because the players love it.

 

[Claypool]

The NHL would be better off doing its own World Cup every two years during the summer. That would get more attention that anything the Olympics could offer.

 

[f1nn]

'Sigh' I hate these threads so much....

The problem ISN'T that players might get injured or that it screws up the NHL schedule, the problem is that the money involved (advertising, TV revenues etc...) in an Olympic best on best tournament ISN'T going to the NHL, it's going to the IOC (or some other subsidiary).

Why on earth should the NHL lend out its players for a televised best on best tournament worth potentially BILLIONS and not be able to recoup one cent of profit from it (other than extremely vague assertions of 'growing the game')?

What motive is there (other than national pride) to send the players to the Olympics, when it would enormously more profitable for the NHL to put on its OWN best on best tournament (think World Cup of Hockey) and rake in all the cash therein.

From a business perspective, it makes little to no sense to give the theoretical competition (IOC) a helping hand by sending YOUR players to THEM. The NHL would be absolutely no questions-asked best served by hosting a World Cup of Hockey on its own and completely ignoring the Olympics from now on.

Now whether from a fan's perspective this is for the best is questionable, but that's the thing about business, it doesn't take that sort of thing into consideration.

How about since the national federations (at least in Europe), not the NHL, invest money into developing said players so they can become the world's best and make the NHL some money?

 

[chauron]

The NHL would be better off doing its own World Cup every two years during the summer. That would get more attention that anything the Olympics could offer.

Who the heck plays Ice Hockey in summer? Pfff ... that'd be a letdown, NHL training tournament.

 

[Xokkeu]

The NHL would be better off doing its own World Cup every two years during the summer. That would get more attention that anything the Olympics could offer.

Maybe in 50 years but right now there's no chance in hell the World Cup outdraws the Olympics for anything.

 

[Lempo]

For your normal European, the Olympics, and to lesser degree IIFH tournament, is the only place they will get any exposure to NHL players. Anything else gets buried in the pay channels to be only found by hardcore fans. What's the meaning of that in marketing sense, I don't know.

 

[Claypool]

Who the heck plays Ice Hockey in summer? Pfff ... that'd be a letdown, NHL training tournament.

Well then have it after team training camps but before the regular season or something.

Maybe in 50 years but right now there's no chance in hell the World Cup outdraws the Olympics for anything.

Don't pretend hockey is the only thing happening during the Winter Olympics. Also, the NHL would actually make money off a World Cup than the zero dollars they bring in with the Olympics.

 

[Lempo]

If NHL didn't allow the players to go play these games for two weeks in every fourth year, what are the chances that for example some bigger Russian stars who really want to go play in the Olympics would try to secure an KHL deal for Olympic years and thus be there raising KHL's status instead of being in NHL?

 

[FuriousSenator]

For your normal European, the Olympics, and to lesser degree IIFH tournament, is the only place they will get any exposure to NHL players. Anything else gets buried in the pay channels to be only found by hardcore fans. What's the meaning of that in marketing sense, I don't know.

Simply put, you don't matter to the NHL's bottom line.

Sorry but vague statements of 'well with exposure more Europeans will watch and pay attention' don't cut it whatsoever.

 

[nhindian]

Having NHL-players go to Olympics is good for the players and good for the fans, that's about it.

The NHL itself (and the individual teams), really see no benefit, and are risking their assets for some outside purpose.

If it weren't for the NHLPA, NHLers wouldn't have went this year.

"Raising the status" of the NHL isn't much of a tangible benefit. People that frequent this board are already fans and watch, but how many 'potential' fans watch the Olympics then get sucked into a full-time NHL watcher? I follow the soccer World Cup very intently every 4 years, but I don't regularly watch MLS/EPL/La Liga.

 

[Xokkeu]

Well then have it after team training camps but before the regular season or something.



Don't pretend hockey is the only thing happening during the Winter Olympics. Also, the NHL would actually make money off a World Cup than the zero dollars they bring in with the Olympics.

You weren't talking about who gets the money, something I frankly don't care about unless the answer is me. You said a hockey World Cup in the summer would get more attention than hockey in Olympics, which is far divorced from reality. A summer World Cup will be like the world baseball classic, which most Americans regard as a rearranged all star game, with mediocre domestic tv ratings and attendance. Every time the WBC roles around American players talk about how it's not the Olympics, implying it's fun, but not really that important. American fan interest reflects that reality.

Basketball is an even starker example, with the US sending it's young prospects to the World Cup and even telling it's stars like James not to bother with it. Dave yourself for the Olympics.

Any idea that a hockey World Cup will draw more attention than hockey at the Olympics is simply divorced from reality.

 

[Duff35]

'Sigh' I hate these threads so much....

The problem ISN'T that players might get injured or that it screws up the NHL schedule, the problem is that the money involved (advertising, TV revenues etc...) in an Olympic best on best tournament ISN'T going to the NHL, it's going to the IOC (or some other subsidiary).

Why on earth should the NHL lend out its players for a televised best on best tournament worth potentially BILLIONS and not be able to recoup one cent of profit from it (other than extremely vague assertions of 'growing the game')?

What motive is there (other than national pride) to send the players to the Olympics, when it would enormously more profitable for the NHL to put on its OWN best on best tournament (think World Cup of Hockey) and rake in all the cash therein.

From a business perspective, it makes little to no sense to give the theoretical competition (IOC) a helping hand by sending YOUR players to THEM. The NHL would be absolutely no questions-asked best served by hosting a World Cup of Hockey on its own and completely ignoring the Olympics from now on.

Now whether from a fan's perspective this is for the best is questionable, but that's the thing about business, it doesn't take that sort of thing into consideration.

From a business point of view, I agree entirely.

But that's the hurdle that needs to be overcome by the NHL, IOC and IIHF - because I genuinely believe as the top dog in the sport the NHL has a responsibility to get on board with the Olympics (I wrote about it here: http://onepuckshort.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/nhl-has-responsibility-to-go-to-2018-olympics/)

I do fear it will all come back to the colour of money though.

 

[Mike Martin]

"growing the game" by the Olympic participation of NHL players is a myth especially in America. If you seriously think that people in Alabama start watching N.Y. Rangers games on TV because they saw hockey in the Olympics you are kidding yourself. There is a very large portion of the American public who will never watch any hockey except in the Olympics.

 

[saskganesh]

Hockey should be played in hockey season. Hence, a midseason NHL-run World Cup held every two years would be great.

 

[Faltorvo]

League itself gains exposure but the teams don't get anything in return for injured players.

Same teams get diddly if they get hurt in a NHL made WC also.

Unless you are going give a hoot about 1 m in the owner pocket if they are lucky.

 

[Faltorvo]

"growing the game" by the Olympic participation of NHL players is a myth especially in America. If you seriously think that people in Alabama start watching N.Y. Rangers games on TV because they saw hockey in the Olympics you are kidding yourself. There is a very large portion of the American public who will never watch any hockey except in the Olympics.

No one cares if kids in Alabama get interested in hockey , we are talking about growing the games interest world wide.

Look at the Swiss for example and how their program is coming along.

 

[Davebo*]

Maybe the NHL will demand further concessions from the IOC, in order to show up in Korea.

Can you imagine the following painted at centre ice? "The IOC presents The NHL!" Yeah - probably that won't happen....

 

[Faltorvo]

'Sigh' I hate these threads so much....

The problem ISN'T that players might get injured or that it screws up the NHL schedule, the problem is that the money involved (advertising, TV revenues etc...) in an Olympic best on best tournament ISN'T going to the NHL, it's going to the IOC (or some other subsidiary).

Why on earth should the NHL lend out its players for a televised best on best tournament worth potentially BILLIONS and not be able to recoup one cent of profit from it (other than extremely vague assertions of 'growing the game')?

What motive is there (other than national pride) to send the players to the Olympics, when it would enormously more profitable for the NHL to put on its OWN best on best tournament (think World Cup of Hockey) and rake in all the cash therein.

From a business perspective, it makes little to no sense to give the theoretical competition (IOC) a helping hand by sending YOUR players to THEM. The NHL would be absolutely no questions-asked best served by hosting a World Cup of Hockey on its own and completely ignoring the Olympics from now on.

Now whether from a fan's perspective this is for the best is questionable, but that's the thing about business, it doesn't take that sort of thing into consideration.

Oh man you need to get real.

Owners would be lucky to pocket a million each by running it's own b/b.

Believe it, if Billions was on the line, it would not be approaching 10 years since the last time the NHL tried this.

Whats the motivation on the players part? 30m into the players union kitty?

Bragging about a trophy little care about world wide?

 

[Lempo]

So, will Canada and USA willfully just hand the Olympic metals in ice-hockey to other nations by having their best players stay back while the others bring their cream from KHL and other European leagues?