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

[sketch22]

Same number of NHL games are going to be played. 82 games per team, plus playoffs. NHL loses not one dime overall.

Except for the fans that won't go to see an Isles team that just lost its biggest (if not only) draw. Which costs the NHL ticket revenue, concessions, and merchandise. Plus the cost of paying JT not to play for the rest of the season and his medical costs. If JT doesn't come back at full strength (never know with that type of injury) they lose even more. For what?

The off chance that enough non-hockey fans watched the Olympics, get interested enough to start watching the NHL after it ended, and then bought enough tickets/merchandise to cover the costs incurred by the NHL for the players attending.

The Olympics getting people to watch Hockey is fine, but unless those people turn around and start spending their money on games or merchandise it does absolutely nothing to help the NHL. While the NHL is risking its product every single time those players step on the ice.

 

[SJGoalie32]

Except for the fans that won't go to see an Isles team that just lost its biggest (if not only) draw. Which costs the NHL ticket revenue, concessions, and merchandise. Plus the cost of paying JT not to play for the rest of the season and his medical costs. If JT doesn't come back at full strength (never know with that type of injury) they lose even more. For what?

I'm skeptical of just how many Isles fans were really going to come out to watch a cellar-dwelling Islanders team even with Tavares in the lineup.

But even with that said, one could also make a similar argument that the Olympic break afforded many more NHL players (who stayed home) the chance to get treatment for and recuperate from injuries that would have hampered their play or forced them off the ice altogether. For the Sharks, Logan Couture will end up missing fewer games while recovering from surgery thanks to the 3-week break. And I suspect many of the non-Sochi players will have a little extra spring in their step for the stretch run. One team loses a player to injury, another team gains improved health thanks to the prolonged layoff and chance to recover. From a league-wide perspective, it's roughly a wash.

The off chance that enough non-hockey fans watched the Olympics, get interested enough to start watching the NHL after it ended, and then bought enough tickets/merchandise to cover the costs incurred by the NHL for the players attending.

The Olympics getting people to watch Hockey is fine, but unless those people turn around and start spending their money on games or merchandise it does absolutely nothing to help the NHL. While the NHL is risking its product every single time those players step on the ice.

Several people here said that they started watching hockey because of the NHL players at the Olympics. There are many people in the US who took up an interest in hockey because of the 1980 game (granted that didn't have NHL players, but the ability to ice NHL players only helps the US chances of winning, which increases popularity in the states). No telling how many thanks to the 2010 game. TJ Oshie became a nationwide household name for a few days.

Even if those newer fans do nothing but watch a few NHL games on TV, that creates bigger ratings which leads to more lucrative TV contracts for the NHL.

Oh, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the NHL made one or two dollars off the following website....

http://shop.nhl.com/Olympic_Hockey?ab=bm-nhlcms-Bspot-Olympic-021814

 

[onlyalad]

So the appeal of having the best players in the world square off against each other is because they do in the shadow if the 5 rings ?

For me the appeal of the olympics is the talent and has nothing to do with the olympics itself. If the nhl didnt break and didnt send players to the olympics and we had the olympics on at the same time as the NHL, I know which channel my thumb hits on the remote.

Nope, more about getting the other leagues to send players. Would the KHL pump up the NHL coffers by sending their players, or the SEL or any league?. By threatening to hold the NHL players out of the Olympics the NHL can hope to get the other players to come to the World Cup in exchange. You won't get the talent you say is what you are looking for if the rest of the world doesn't come to the World Cup. You will get an NHL all star game.

 

[kdb209]

If the League thought their was a tangible benefit to going to the Olympics, we wouldn't be having these threads every four years - but they don't.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...n-benefits-of-olympics-as-players-want-medals

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly told reporters in Sochi that having the league’s players at the Olympics is good for the sport’s visibility, but pointed out that NHL ticket sales and television ratings have not increased after past Olympics.

“As a practical business matter, for the clubs individually, the Olympics have no tangible positive effect,†Daly said.

 

[SJGoalie32]

So the appeal of having the best players in the world square off against each other is because they do in the shadow if the 5 rings ?

The Olympics are an incredible marketing tool with a tremendous brand image.

Let me put it to you this way......how many folks here watched any boblsedding, alpine skiing, cross country skiing, or speed skating during the Olympics? I know I did.

Okay.....so did you know that all of those sports also have their own "World Cups?" Events that pit the same best-of-the-best in those sports against each other? And how many of us watched those World Cups, even though it's the same talent competing against each other, just without the 5 rings logo? Yeah, me neither.

Same competitors, same talent, same events.....put it all in one place with the Olympics and suddenly people who never watched before will watch now. When the rings are gone and those same sports hold those same events, they get a fraction of the attention.

Personally speaking, it's worked for me in a few sports recently. I've taken a greater interest in curling because of the Olympics. I'm competing in a triathlon this year because of what I saw in the 2012 Olympics. These are things I have greater interest in because of the Olympics and which I never would have bothered to watch or take interest in had the same best-of-best World Cup matches been on ESPN 8 at 3am.

 

[sketch22]

I'm skeptical of just how many Isles fans were really going to come out to watch a cellar-dwelling Islanders team even with Tavares in the lineup.

More than will come out and watch them with Tavares out for the season.

But even with that said, one could also make a similar argument that the Olympic break afforded many more NHL players (who stayed home) the chance to get treatment for and recuperate from injuries that would have hampered their play or forced them off the ice altogether.

Except the biggest draws are the ones at the Olympics risking injury. As a Hawks fan I am happy Bickell got a couple of weeks off to rehab his knees, but not at the expense of the Hawks top players risking injury in meaningless games.

One team loses a player to injury, another team gains improved health thanks to the prolonged layoff and chance to recover. From a league-wide perspective, it's roughly a wash.

It isn't a wash at all. There is a big difference between losing players (and draws) like JT and Zetterberg and the average NHL player. Those guys are much more important to their teams both on the ice and off the ice (ie financially) than the average player is.

Several people here said that they started watching hockey because of the NHL players at the Olympics. There are many people in the US who took up an interest in hockey because of the 1980 game (granted that didn't have NHL players, but the ability to ice NHL players only helps the US chances of winning, which increases popularity in the states).

First the US is hardly the same place as it was in the 80's and there isn't nearly as much stock or caring put in toward the Olympics today. And I'm not saying the NHL won't gain a few fans from the Olympics, but unless they are gaining a couple of hundred thousand (paying) fans a pop it does nothing to justify the risks they are taking.

No telling how many thanks to the 2010 game.

Very few apparently. The NHL's ratings after the Olympics in 2010 were higher, vut insignificantly so.

TJ Oshie became a nationwide household name for a few days.

And so was Michael Phelps, but people quickly stop caring until he got caught messing up afterward. The Olympics are only a story during the Olympics. Afterward (let alone during) the majority of people don't give a damn.

Even if those newer fans do nothing but watch a few NHL games on TV, that creates bigger ratings which leads to more lucrative TV contracts for the NHL.

Again the 2010 Olympics was a much bigger draw and the NHL's rating afterwards were insignificantly higher. So there is absolutely no proof that the Olympics help the NHL ratings in any way or increases the NHL earning potential so whey should they risk it?

Oh, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the NHL made one or two dollars off the following website....

http://shop.nhl.com/Olympic_Hockey?ab=bm-nhlcms-Bspot-Olympic-021814

I'm going to go out on a limb as well and guess that most of the people going to the NHL's site to buy Olympic gear are already NHL fans.

Personally speaking, it's worked for me in a few sports recently. I've taken a greater interest in curling because of the Olympics. I'm competing in a triathlon this year because of what I saw in the 2012 Olympics. These are things I have greater interest in because of the Olympics and which I never would have bothered to watch or take interest in had the same best-of-best World Cup matches been on ESPN 8 at 3am.

Congratulations, you are the exception not the rule.

 

[FuriousSenator]

Where do you think that money is coming from?

It isn't coming from attendance figures, given that the last time Canada hosted the World Championships in 2008, average attendance was less than 9k per game. It isn't going to come from TV ratings given that a Hockey World Cup has none of the cache or interest that the Olympics do. It sure isn't going to generate much domestic interest in the years when the games are played overseas (at midnight-4am), and it probably won't generate much international interest if the games are being played at insane hours for European audiences.

If the NHL has to pay players/foreign leagues/federations to play, that just further increases costs and cuts into profits.

At best the tournament would generate a minor profit (while potentially risking losing money), would fail to generate 1/10th of the exposure of the Olympics, and would run roughly the same risk to player long-term health (I'm sure Garth Snow would be so much happier to lose his star player Tavares for several months at the beginning of the season). Minimal short-term profit, with not even close to a fraction of the national or international exposure that the Olympics. The benefits don't sound that HUGE to me. Certainly not in place of the Olympics.

It will if there isn't any Olympic participation.

 

[FuriousSenator]

As a life long hhockey fan, I dont know anyone who considers the world championhips ( best against best whose team didnt make the playoffs) worth watching. I'm convinced that the IIHF doesnt care much because if they did they wouldnt hold it during the nhl playoffs.

yes because the IIHF makes its EUROPEAN-CATERED championship schedule with consideration for what is happening in North America...

Get real, the World Championships are the most important ice hockey tournament in Europe which likely has more total hockey fans/players than Canada/the United States (perhaps less devoted, but there nonetheless).

Did you know the World Championship final has more viewers in Russia alone on average than the entire Stanley Cup Final? Guess the Stanley Cup playoffs shouldn't be running during the World Championship....

 

[FuriousSenator]

The Olympics are an incredible marketing tool with a tremendous brand image.

Let me put it to you this way......how many folks here watched any boblsedding, alpine skiing, cross country skiing, or speed skating during the Olympics? I know I did.

Okay.....so did you know that all of those sports also have their own "World Cups?" Events that pit the same best-of-the-best in those sports against each other? And how many of us watched those World Cups, even though it's the same talent competing against each other, just without the 5 rings logo? Yeah, me neither.

Same competitors, same talent, same events.....put it all in one place with the Olympics and suddenly people who never watched before will watch now. When the rings are gone and those same sports hold those same events, they get a fraction of the attention.

Personally speaking, it's worked for me in a few sports recently. I've taken a greater interest in curling because of the Olympics. I'm competing in a triathlon this year because of what I saw in the 2012 Olympics. These are things I have greater interest in because of the Olympics and which I never would have bothered to watch or take interest in had the same best-of-best World Cup matches been on ESPN 8 at 3am.

Ah yes, personal anecdotes coming from someone so devoted to sports he posts on HFboards being used to prove how much the Olympics has attracted the casual fan for random sports.

I literally NEVER hear the WORDS alpine skiing/biathlon/luge outside of a 2 week period once every 4 years. I live in London UK, one of the most international cities in the world and while people certainly talked about "ice hockey" or "that Canadian game" this past few weeks, not a SINGLE person even KNEW the NHL was starting back up last night. Not a single person. I go to school with about 50% American students. All my friends now know I'm a huge NHL fan after getting to know me. I asked a guy from Chicago yesterday if he was excited for NHL starting back up last night. His response? "Oh wow NHL is still going on?" And he watched the Russia-USA game/Canada-USA game with rapt attention.

My point is that you keep on referencing this unbelievably vague notion of indirect marketing being provided for the NHL by the Olympics. It doesn't work that way. If, as you say, a tiny percentage of people start paying more attention, that's all well and good, but from a purely economic perspective, those people don't matter at all to the bottom line, and so might as well not exist.

Listen to someone who actually has a financial stake in this debate when he says:

“As a practical business matter, for the clubs individually, the Olympics have no tangible positive effect,” Daly said

Don't get me wrong, I love the Olympics. I would be devastated if the players didn't go in 2018. If I was an investor though and had real financial stake in the NHL, I'd be BEGGING the Board of Governors to cancel NHL participation ASAP and instead host a major world tournament a la a World Cup. Guess why, cause it would line my pockets a hell of a lot more than your 'marketing' strategy.

 

[Ducksgo*]

The Olympics are an incredible marketing tool with a tremendous brand image.

Let me put it to you this way......how many folks here watched any boblsedding, alpine skiing, cross country skiing, or speed skating during the Olympics? I know I did.

Okay.....so did you know that all of those sports also have their own "World Cups?" Events that pit the same best-of-the-best in those sports against each other? And how many of us watched those World Cups, even though it's the same talent competing against each other, just without the 5 rings logo? Yeah, me neither.

Same competitors, same talent, same events.....put it all in one place with the Olympics and suddenly people who never watched before will watch now. When the rings are gone and those same sports hold those same events, they get a fraction of the attention.

Personally speaking, it's worked for me in a few sports recently. I've taken a greater interest in curling because of the Olympics. I'm competing in a triathlon this year because of what I saw in the 2012 Olympics. These are things I have greater interest in because of the Olympics and which I never would have bothered to watch or take interest in had the same best-of-best World Cup matches been on ESPN 8 at 3am.

Edit: A lot of people been arguing your same points and a lot of posters agree haha

 

[Ducksgo*]

Pretty interesting article from Toronto's news source? Maybe you Canadians know the station?

"Where NBC saw big gains was in online viewing, perhaps accounting for some of that younger demo drop off of TV viewing. Live streaming of the United States-Canada semifinal game Thursday approached 800,000 U.S. viewers on NBC's web portal -- a record high for NBC for anything other than a Super Bowl webcast. (Shaun White's unsuccessful Olympic defence of his snowboard title drew 600,000 streamers.) That 800,000 compares to around 4.1 million live NBC Sports Network viewers, adding 20 per cent to the total U.S. hockey audience"

The average viewing numbers were down from Vancouver Olympics. I think mainly because of the time difference and not being on NA soil. But the point of my post is that hockey is steadily growing to the average fan. Anything arguable to that the statistics don't show or prove that. If anything, more and more people maybe enticed to continue watching the NHL after the Olympics IMO.

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/sports/tv-ratings-for-sochi-2014-down-from-2010-in-vancouver-1.1703138

 

[FuriousSenator]

Pretty interesting article from Toronto's news source? Maybe you Canadians know the station?

"Where NBC saw big gains was in online viewing, perhaps accounting for some of that younger demo drop off of TV viewing. Live streaming of the United States-Canada semifinal game Thursday approached 800,000 U.S. viewers on NBC's web portal -- a record high for NBC for anything other than a Super Bowl webcast. (Shaun White's unsuccessful Olympic defence of his snowboard title drew 600,000 streamers.) That 800,000 compares to around 4.1 million live NBC Sports Network viewers, adding 20 per cent to the total U.S. hockey audience"

The average viewing numbers were down from Vancouver Olympics. I think mainly because of the time difference and not being on NA soil. But the point of my post is that hockey is steadily growing to the average fan. Anything arguable to that the statistics don't show or prove that. If anything, more and more people maybe enticed to continue watching the NHL after the Olympics IMO.

http://www.cp24.com/mobile/sports/tv-ratings-for-sochi-2014-down-from-2010-in-vancouver-1.1703138

Not good enough.

Vague assertions of 'game growth' are bested by dollar and cents NHL led initiatives with TV and ad revenue every single time.

 

[DoyleG]

Nope, more about getting the other leagues to send players. Would the KHL pump up the NHL coffers by sending their players, or the SEL or any league?. By threatening to hold the NHL players out of the Olympics the NHL can hope to get the other players to come to the World Cup in exchange. You won't get the talent you say is what you are looking for if the rest of the world doesn't come to the World Cup. You will get an NHL all star game.

Pretty Much.

When the issues of pros came up in basketball in the Olympics, the NBA was rather reluctant to have its players be involved in the tournament. FIBA pointed out they if the members were going to be beaten by the Americans, they wanted to be beaten by the best. They were quite sick and tired of losing to college teams, which gave the indication the US wasn't interested in the sport.

The clincher was that the Europeans, in particular, offered access to its players if the NBA agreed to play in the Olympics. It was an offer that was too good for the NBA to pass up and they accepted it, with the results being beneficial to all sides.

The only problem that has come up has been when they feel that the Americans have gotten complacent (ie. the era between the Sydney and Beijing Olympics).

 

[Lempo]

But. With or without NHL the Olympic Games will still always be the absolutely biggest international ice-hockey tournament. Can NHL afford to not be represented there without harming its brand as the definite ice-hockey league?

 

[JoeyBeans]

Same number of NHL games are going to be played. 82 games per team, plus playoffs. NHL loses not one dime overall.

Still the bills are there in Feb.

 

[Nothingman*]

OK.....how many Americans have talked about Olympic hockey the last day or two at your work place, etc?. That's right......the NHL does not need nor benefit from the Olympics.

 

[sandysan]

yes because the IIHF makes its EUROPEAN-CATERED championship schedule with consideration for what is happening in North America...

Get real, the World Championships are the most important ice hockey tournament in Europe which likely has more total hockey fans/players than Canada/the United States (perhaps less devoted, but there nonetheless).

Did you know the World Championship final has more viewers in Russia alone on average than the entire Stanley Cup Final? Guess the Stanley Cup playoffs shouldn't be running during the World Championship....

So then call it the European championships, or how about the second ran championships.

Ask any of those people who watch has beens and never will be a that if you had the choice, watch second rate players or the best players represent your nation which do they chose? The answer us clear, best in best is by far the biggest draw. You would get this in the Olympics you would get it in the world cup. The only difference is the latter has a slightly less corrupt administration.

But if the only way these countries can be competitive is by excluding the most talented players take great pride in that shinny world cup.

 

[Mike Martin]

Ratings figures for the U.S./Canada game are irrelevant to the subject of whether the Olympics creates an interest in the NHL. My next point is apparently very difficult for NHL fans to grasp: There are many people who only watch hockey during the Olympics because it is tied to patriotism and waving the flag, they aren't actually enjoying the hockey itself. Hockey itself has zero meaning to them. And thus when the Olympics are over they forget hockey exists and never think about it again until the next Olympics when it is once again tied to patriotism which is the only way you can get these people to watch hockey. It isn't so impossible to imagine that there are hundreds of millions of people worldwide who just don't find hockey entertaining. Therefore, this incessant "grow the game" talk comes across as being quite naive and arrogant.

 

[icing]

So then call it the European championships, or how about the second ran championships.

Ask any of those people who watch has beens and never will be a that if you had the choice, watch second rate players or the best players represent your nation which do they chose? The answer us clear, best in best is by far the biggest draw. You would get this in the Olympics you would get it in the world cup. The only difference is the latter has a slightly less corrupt administration.

But if the only way these countries can be competitive is by excluding the most talented players take great pride in that shinny world cup.

Ask who? The anal opinion about best on best being the only thing that matters only exist i North America. Ask Latvians? Slovaks? Finns? Swedes? For many countries the WHC provides them with their best.

If you ever visited a WHC or even bothered to find out, you would realize that it is a hockey fest (except when it is in Sweden...). Fans from all over comming together in one place for a big party watching hockey.

For a lot of people the ultimate hockey experience is NOT in front of the TV drinking beer by yourself or with a friend ot two, watching at odd hours. This could be true in NA too (with less euro fans for obvious reasons), if you ever wanted to host it.

 

[sandysan]

Ask who? The anal opinion about best on best being the only thing that matters only exist i North America. Ask Latvians? Slovaks? Finns? Swedes? For many countries the WHC provides them with their best.

If you ever visited a WHC or even bothered to find out, you would realize that it is a hockey fest (except when it is in Sweden...). Fans from all over comming together in one place for a big party watching hockey.

For a lot of people the ultimate hockey experience is NOT in front of the TV drinking beer by yourself or with a friend ot two, watching at odd hours. This could be true in NA too (with less euro fans for obvious reasons), if you ever wanted to host it.

The term "world championship" means that the winner is world champion, but no one says that the winner of the world championships are the best team. its ridiculous. I dont even care if they called it the IIHF championship because that explicitley sates the amount of weight such a honor should carry.

I don't say that the winner of the beer league are the world champions, and then insist you must accept this designation.

if this is a big love fest where people get together, party, drink and watch third if not fourth rate hockey, call it hockeypallooza and call it a day.

Call me crazy, but if you are claiming to be world champions this should refelct, at least in part, to the quality of the talent, no ?

 

[Forsberg21Sakic19]

At the risk of offending some, poppycock. The KHL is not a threat to the NHL anymore than the AHL is.

I can guarantee you that if the NHL decided to not allow its players to participate in the olympics, the rag tag collection of the players it would use would make it LESS appealing ( I never thought this was even possible) than the world championships.

The appeal of the NHL is not that it has the dollars behind it nor is it that the league is N/A based. Its appeal is that by leaps and bounds it has the overwhelming majority of the best talent in the world.

And I dont think that fans of a league, that has essentially zero NHL caliber players are going to wake up in the middle of the night to watch players from another continent.

If the trend continues to be that the teams in the olympics are increasingly populated by NHL players, I dont see how this helps these lower leagues at all. Even the teams that didnt have a lot of NHL players, the majority of the players they did have plied their trades in N/A leagues, at least for a while.

The only way this changes is if we go NHL europe, otherwise any other league is at best an also ran.

You make a lot of assumptions with your above analysis. And at the heart of it again is this false idea that the NHL is the only act in town. I spend a significant amount of time in Europe and North America and over the past two years have been amazed at the change in attitudes towards the KHL for the better.

I highly urge provincial North American fans to stop thinking about hockey as a world of NHL > everyone else. This is changing. And if the NHL doesn't act as a partner to the global growth of hockey but instead as an impediment to it, this will only happen more quickly.

 

[sandysan]

You make a lot of assumptions with your above analysis. And at the heart of it again is this false idea that the NHL is the only act in town. I spend a significant amount of time in Europe and North America and over the past two years have been amazed at the change in attitudes towards the KHL for the better.

I highly urge provincial North American fans to stop thinking about hockey as a world of NHL > everyone else. This is changing. And if the NHL doesn't act as a partner to the global growth of hockey but instead as an impediment to it, this will only happen more quickly.

My argument was not quantitative, of course other leagues exist.it's qualitative, the best players on the planet overwhelmingly play in the nhl ( from all countries).

If you guys want to have intramural tourneys, fine by me.

And just wondering, where in NA did you find people marveling about the quality improvements of the KHL?

 

[MuckOG]

I have been asking for anyone to produce one iota of evidence that having the NHL players in the Olympics has resulted in one more person becoming a season ticket holder or spending more money on the NHL because of a direct link to what they saw at the Olympics. Haven't seen any proof yet. Said it before and I will say it again.... If going to the Olympics was a guaranteed money maker for the NHL and there was no downside, they wouldn't be debating going every four years.

The whole "growing the game" is a crock and everyone knows it, especially north of the border.

Ask anyone in Canada if they want NHLers in the Olympics and the result is 100% yes. Why? To "grow the game", to make more money for their local NHL team, to make more money for the NHL, to make more money for the players? Not a chance. The ONLY reason why we want NHLers in the Olympics is so we can win GOLD. Because we know without the NHLers our chances of winning decrease substantially.

The 1980 Olympics did more to grow the sport in America at the grass roots than anything the NHL has ever done. Numbers at the youth levels skyrocketed after the USA won gold.

 

[sandysan]

The 1980 Olympics did more to grow the sport in America at the grass roots than anything the NHL has ever done. Numbers at the youth levels skyrocketed after the USA won gold.

So growth of the game is contingent on winning a likely once in a lifetime " miracle game" ?That's what we are hoping for, that the US is so mismatched going in that their chances are remote and the pull it off ?

If the Us had won gold this time we would have gotten the exact same response we always do, lots of rah-rah for about two weeks then crickets.

If kids are interested in taking up hockey, they can watch the NHL year round ( provided they live in areas where access to sheets exists)

 

[FuriousSenator]

My argument was not quantitative, of course other leagues exist.it's qualitative, the best players on the planet overwhelmingly play in the nhl ( from all countries).

If you guys want to have intramural tourneys, fine by me.

And just wondering, where in NA did you find people marveling about the quality improvements of the KHL?

You make me so embarrassed as a North American.

Europeans reading this, please do not let the ignorant opinions of this one person cloud how you perceive us. This guy clearly has not bothered watching any European hockey whatsoever.

I went to the Juniors in Malmo, Sweden this past holiday. Best hockey tournament I have ever been to, and I also went to the 2009 World Juniors in Ottawa. Had more fun in Sweden, fans were more intelligent about the game, the place was an absolute party and I had a helluva time.

Personally I have been MORE than impressed by the rate of growth in the KHL and other European leagues. Hell the German DEL looks like one of the most fun hockey leagues on the planet. Like look at this Berlin Eisbaren game!! How can you not be impressed by the fans?! Talent will follow (is following).