WJC: Tournament popularity outside Canada

[scotian1]

This issue could be solved if it was economically feasible to hold it on a more rotating basis between all countries involved. Sadly that has not been the case and the IIHF would be foolish to not capitalize on the financial windfall that comes with Canada. Certainly not Canada's fault that this is the case. It is not just the case for the World Juniors either just look at the support the Canadian Women's team gets in meaningful home games. I don't see the Women's game selling out large arenas in Europe either.

 

[JackSlater]

After 1992, Russian hockey plummeted, and the other Europeans and the USA did not have hockey programs that could match the resources Canada throws into it. Now, things have changed, and the Europeans and Americans are much more competitive. So buying up the WJC and playing exclusively home games will bring a huge competitive advantage for Canada when other teams are leveling with them. Those raucous crowds supporting Canada have the effect of injecting adrenaline into the team and intimidating referees who make calls that go against Canada. Those are the issues that affect competition.

The impact of crowds is fine to speculate on, but the data does not support it at this point. I'll take the facts over your speculation. as far as referees favouring Canada, would you care to share any examples from the gold medal game? My feeling was that they were letting a lot go by Russia early in the game when they were being thoroughly outplayed, but did not reciprocate in the second when Canada was in a similar situation. Examples of referees favouring Canada in this tournament?

 

[Jonimaus]

Let's not pretend Swedes having good age groups and final appearances hasn't had any effect on the popularity of the tournament there. Couple of bad age groups or performances and we'll see how the ratings go.

I can guarantee you that if Sweden misses medals, even just 3 years in a row, the hype will be gone and the tournament will be largely forgotten.

 

[Yakushev72]

The impact of crowds is fine to speculate on, but the data does not support it at this point. I'll take the facts over your speculation. as far as referees favouring Canada, would you care to share any examples from the gold medal game? My feeling was that they were letting a lot go by Russia early in the game when they were being thoroughly outplayed, but did not reciprocate in the second when Canada was in a similar situation. Examples of referees favouring Canada in this tournament?

Penalizing Yudin after Russia's first goal, but not penalizing Domi, #3 and #10 of Canada for the numerous hits before and after whistles. Often times, the tone is set not so much by what is called but what is let go. The difference is that the referees let all the chippy stuff from Canada go, while penalizing Russia for the one occasion when they got a little chippy after a whistle. It sent the message that Canada had a blank check, while nothing would be tolerated from the Russians. It definitely affects the play when teams know that the referee is going to give in to the crowd. As for other Canadian games, I didn't see them, but I got the impression that the Americans weren't that happy about the refereeing in their game with Canada.

 

[Jussi]

Looks like the sensors are out again but I would like to point out that same people who complain about the WJC being hosted here never say a peep about the World Championships which are only ever played in Europe.

Because unlike the WJC, neither US nor Canada have no interest in applying to host it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

My feeling was that they were letting a lot go by Russia early in the game when they were being thoroughly outplayed, but did not reciprocate in the second when Canada was in a similar situation.

And you were right, but we all digress...

 

[JackSlater]

Penalizing Yudin after Russia's first goal, but not penalizing Domi, #3 and #10 of Canada for the numerous hits before and after whistles. Often times, the tone is set not so much by what is called but what is let go. The difference is that the referees let all the chippy stuff from Canada go, while penalizing Russia for the one occasion when they got a little chippy after a whistle. It sent the message that Canada had a blank check, while nothing would be tolerated from the Russians. It definitely affects the play when teams know that the referee is going to give in to the crowd. As for other Canadian games, I didn't see them, but I got the impression that the Americans weren't that happy about the refereeing in their game with Canada.

I at least appreciate that you gave some specifics. I personally found that Russia was at least as active as Canada in the post whistle jostling early in the game, and I found the penalty call against Virtanen (at a terrible point for Canada) to be an absolute joke. I disagree that calls were missed to any noteworthy degree, but I do appreciate someone actually pointing out instances of this for once on this website. In any event, I do consider Canada's hosting of the WJC as an advantage overall (mostly for the ice size, not crowds), but I doubt that it impacts the results of many tournaments. They have the crowd to motivate them, but with that comes extra pressure that can make hockey players (particularly teenagers) fall apart when things go wrong.

 

[Jussi]

I can guarantee you that if Sweden misses medals, even just 3 years in a row, the hype will be gone and the tournament will be largely forgotten.

Was there a decline this year?

 

[Yakushev72]

This issue could be solved if it was economically feasible to hold it on a more rotating basis between all countries involved. Sadly that has not been the case and the IIHF would be foolish to not capitalize on the financial windfall that comes with Canada. Certainly not Canada's fault that this is the case. It is not just the case for the World Juniors either just look at the support the Canadian Women's team gets in meaningful home games. I don't see the Women's game selling out large arenas in Europe either.

I don't disagree with your premise. Especially given the fact that Rene Fasel isn't under the gun from other IIHF members so far to spread hosting the tournament around, he's going to follow the money in order to enrich the IIHF and, frankly, line his own pockets, like any other enterprise would do. But the end result of not formally requiring that the tournament be rotated annually among all participating members is that it is now a Canadian tournament for the benefit of entertaining Canadian fans, and for European fans, it will continue to be a meaningless youth tournament played halfway around the World of minimal interest to anyone other than Canadians. If they are smart, the "foreign" Federations will stop participating unless they receive a large share of the total revenue generated.

 

[Jussi]

I don't disagree with your premise. Especially given the fact that Rene Fasel isn't under the gun from other IIHF members so far to spread hosting the tournament around, he's going to follow the money in order to enrich the IIHF and, frankly, line his own pockets, like any other enterprise would do. But the end result of not formally requiring that the tournament be rotated annually among all participating members is that it is now a Canadian tournament for the benefit of entertaining Canadian fans, and for European fans, it will continue to be a meaningless youth tournament played halfway around the World of minimal interest to anyone other than Canadians. If they are smart, the "foreign" Federations will stop participating unless they receive a large share of the total revenue generated.

What this actually means that there isn't high interest in Europe to host the tournament.

 

[Macman]

I don't disagree with your premise. Especially given the fact that Rene Fasel isn't under the gun from other IIHF members so far to spread hosting the tournament around, he's going to follow the money in order to enrich the IIHF and, frankly, line his own pockets, like any other enterprise would do. But the end result of not formally requiring that the tournament be rotated annually among all participating members is that it is now a Canadian tournament for the benefit of entertaining Canadian fans, and for European fans, it will continue to be a meaningless youth tournament played halfway around the World of minimal interest to anyone other than Canadians. If they are smart, the "foreign" Federations will stop participating unless they receive a large share of the total revenue generated.

It's hard to be under the gun when very few actually have guns. The 2010 tournament was only held in Saskatoon because the original host, Switzerland, withdrew and the only cities that put in bids to take over were Canadian. Not a single European city offered. What are you going to do when most European cities either aren't interested or are rightly afraid of losing their shirts?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't disagree with your premise. Especially given the fact that Rene Fasel isn't under the gun from other IIHF members so far to spread hosting the tournament around, he's going to follow the money in order to enrich the IIHF and, frankly, line his own pockets, like any other enterprise would do. But the end result of not formally requiring that the tournament be rotated annually among all participating members is that it is now a Canadian tournament for the benefit of entertaining Canadian fans, and for European fans, it will continue to be a meaningless youth tournament played halfway around the World of minimal interest to anyone other than Canadians. If they are smart, the "foreign" Federations will stop participating unless they receive a large share of the total revenue generated.

Or, if they put up the money to host it, maybe they'll receive some of this revenue that so surely will be generated. That's probably fair.

Don't blame Hollywood for putting the best show on screen, and don't blame Canada for putting the best show on ice.

 

[Jonimaus]

Was there a decline this year?

Well the games were played in Canada, so the hype and view numbers were obviously nowhere close to last years. Also based on the team having played poorly in the pre-tournament games ment people didn't really expect too much. A 4th place was obviously a disaster, but most people didn't feel like this team would win gold anyways, unlike last year.

Olympic hockey will be watched regardless of anything except if the game is played in a really bad timeslot. WHC will be watched by most when we reach medal stages and/or we have a lot of good players on the team. WJC lives and dies with results, but not too many teams are really medal conteders anyways, so it's not that hard to go deep in the WJC, so it has that going for it.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't disagree with your premise. Especially given the fact that Rene Fasel isn't under the gun from other IIHF members so far to spread hosting the tournament around, he's going to follow the money in order to enrich the IIHF and, frankly, line his own pockets, like any other enterprise would do. But the end result of not formally requiring that the tournament be rotated annually among all participating members is that it is now a Canadian tournament for the benefit of entertaining Canadian fans, and for European fans, it will continue to be a meaningless youth tournament played halfway around the World of minimal interest to anyone other than Canadians. If they are smart, the "foreign" Federations will stop participating unless they receive a large share of the total revenue generated.

Someone is really, really taking this loss hard. The tournament is now meaningless, and other federations should consider ending their participation completely. OK.

 

[Sleeptalker*]

Well gee, if volleyball and basketball have become so popular, I wonder why isn't this shown in the attendance figures.

I don't know if this is the proper answer for you:

https://www.google.se/search?q=susi...v&sa=X&ei=yxazVL2_K-GaygPLtIHgCg&ved=0CB8QsAQ

But still, about 8000 (!) Finland basketball-fans went down to Bilbao, Spain, to see the Americans beat the livin' 'ell out of 'em (Finland) earlier this year, or rather last year.
So there you go.

Susijengi (The Wolfpack, that is) all respect to 'em, by the way!

Even if I don't care about basketball even a little inch ...

But even the American superstars were impressed by the Finland-support!

Finland a land of plenty.

Sport-idiots that is!

Then I probably not even should mention the nearly 10.000 or so Finns who travel to Budapest, Hungary, and Hungaroring (even if Hungary is Finlands brother-country) every year to watch Kimi Räikkönen and Valtteri Bottas doin' their stuff in the Formula 1 circuit ...
And that incl. me!

WJC?

A little bit out of focus for the Finns me thinx ...

 

[Sleeptalker*]

... and if you don't see the pics - push the blue search glass icon in the link!

And here you got The Wolfpack (Susijengi) in action in Spain!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGPiCbIQueY

 

[PurpleMouse]

My feeling was that they were letting a lot go by Russia early in the game when they were being thoroughly outplayed, but did not reciprocate in the second when Canada was in a similar situation.

It was reciprocated in the third period in the final few minutes- a LOT of interference, holding, etc by Canada went uncalled then. I actually found that to be much more noticable than what Russia got away with in the first.

Also, it may have been nothing, but behind the play early in the first, I think between the first and second Canadian goals, there appeared to be a hit from behind by a Canadian player that just happened on the corner of the screen- was never replayed, so very well it may have been a non-issue, but found it interesting it was never mentioned or discussion. I re-read the game thread after and there was no reference to it.

That said, I'm not necessarily agreeing with Yakushev's point... quite possible that the non-calls both ways evened out. I just am surprised that a lot of fans felt the reffing was pro-Russian because I certainly didn't see it that way.

 

[Sleeptalker*]

Too bad too sad that WJC is a really big thing in only two countries - Canada and Sweden.

As you can see Finland has no problems with followin' their sport-heroes in large numbers (even if they suck!) - and that up and down Europe!

But last years WJC in Malmö - when Finland won the gold! - there were maybe only 300-500 Finns at the game.
And pretty much everyone of 'em already lived in Sweden!

Juniors wailing ...

 

[Yakushev72]

What this actually means that there isn't high interest in Europe to host the tournament.

Exactly, which is why it is inevitable that the tournament will increasingly evolve toward being a completely Canadian tournament to be held in Canadian cities to entertain Canadian fans. I believe that they will skip the bit about occasionally holding it in American border cities, because there is no evidence that there is any American interest in the tournament whatsoever.

Ideally, an international tournament would unfold like the Olympics or the World Cup of Football, where you have travelers from all over the World staying at hotels and spending money in restaurants and shops. In Buffalo, I am told that almost all the tickets were bought up by Canadians who just crossed the border for the games, and then went back home to eat and sleep. That offers almost no economic incentive for US cities to bid on the WJC. And to add insult to injury, when the Semifinal?? match between Team USA and Canada rolled around, the "host" American crowd was drowned out by the vastly numerically superior Canadian fans. I guess the good news is that the people who don't care about these trends don't care!

 

[Canuckistani]

Exactly, which is why it is inevitable that the tournament will increasingly evolve toward being a completely Canadian tournament to be held in Canadian cities to entertain Canadian fans.

Sort of like how the WHC is basically a European event held in European cities for European fans.

 

[Canuckistani]

In any event, I do consider Canada's hosting of the WJC as an advantage overall (mostly for the ice size, not crowds), but I doubt that it impacts the results of many tournaments.

Canada wins 45% of all WJC at home (5/11), and 39% of those away (11/28), not a huge difference.

However, they've won 60% (3/5) of events hosted in USA, and 35% (8/23) in Europe.

So 50% in North America (all home games really), and 35% overseas.

 

[NyQuil]

Sort of like how the WHC is basically a European event held in European cities for European fans.

He finally understands what we mean.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Exactly, which is why it is inevitable that the tournament will increasingly evolve toward being a completely Canadian tournament to be held in Canadian cities to entertain Canadian fans. I believe that they will skip the bit about occasionally holding it in American border cities, because there is no evidence that there is any American interest in the tournament whatsoever.

Not that you're wrong... but you're wrong:

World junior championship: Tampa vying to host in 2018
"Multiple NHL markets in distinct regions of the U.S. taking an interest in the tourney shows how big of a tent-pole event it is becoming."

Ideally, an international tournament would unfold like the Olympics or the World Cup of Football, where you have travelers from all over the World staying at hotels and spending money in restaurants and shops. In Buffalo, I am told that almost all the tickets were bought up by Canadians who just crossed the border for the games, and then went back home to eat and sleep. That offers almost no economic incentive for US cities to bid on the WJC. And to add insult to injury, when the Semifinal?? match between Team USA and Canada rolled around, the "host" American crowd was drowned out by the vastly numerically superior Canadian fans. I guess the good news is that the people who don't care about these trends don't care!

Well, again, find somewhere other than Canada or a US border town willing to put up the money, and make us Canadians travel and stay in your hotels, eat at your restaurants, and buy your souvenirs. Malmo seemed to do okay. Otherwise, stop complaining about it.

 

[Canuckistani]

What it really comes down to is hockey culture.

Over here the WJC is a holiday tradition, which we often host, where we cheer on the next generation, while the WHC is viewed as a B-event in the shadow of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

For Europeans it's the opposite: the WHC are huge, always held in Europe (only once in Canada) while the juniors are an afterthought.

"Who cares about crappy B-rosters?" say Canadians, and "who cares about watching teenagers?" say the Euros.

No one's right or wrong, its just the way fans on either side of the pond have grown up watching the game.

The only thing all fans agree on is the importance of the Olympics, especially since 1998.

 

[JackSlater]

Canada wins 45% of all WJC at home (5/11), and 39% of those away (11/28), not a huge difference.

However, they've won 60% (3/5) of events hosted in USA, and 35% (8/23) in Europe.

So 50% in North America (all home games really), and 35% overseas.

It's actually closer than you have indicated. Prior to 1982 Canada didn't send a team with a legitimate shot of winning, but instead the memorial cup champion plus a few ringers and minus their graduated players, so results since 1982 for Canada are more relevant.

We're looking at 5/10 at home (50%), 11/24 (46%) away. 8/15 (53%) in North America, 8/19 (42%) in Europe.

It's also worth noting that the only twice were the American tournaments (2005 & 2011) flooded with Canadians. The other three had very poor attendance. Canada has a better record in WJC tournaments held in USA without much support (2/3) than they do in American WJC tournaments with Canadian support (1/2).