Olympics: [TSN] IOC will have to pay for NHL players

[jj cale]

The time zone is a killer. If it's a USA-Canada final somehow, best case I guess they start the game at noon and that's only a 9pm eastern start. But of course then it's 3am in Europe.

If it's a non nhl Team Canada I MAY watch just out of sheer loyalty to the team but it is going to be a game time decision of sorts. Even I have my limits and going back to a hand me down Team Canada and worse yet at ungodly hours of the day is going to test those limits.

And even if I do watch this potential watered down minor league stuff, a tournament of that significance (very low imo) is not going to move me much.

The genie is out of the bottle for me and most Canadian fans concerning olympic hockey, you can't put it back in, for us at least.

 

[Jussi]

I'm not asking for anything to go "through the roof". I just think, for virtually all things that have value and earn revenue, the workers that are responsible for creating that value should be sharing that revenue with organizers.

Referring to the athletes as workers is rather asinine since they don't just show up for work like normal workers. They have to meet qualifying limits or win qualifying tournaments to be able to compete there.

 

[Jussi]

The whole context is in regards to NHL participation (read the thread title!), and the argument was that Americans care enough that the NHL should participate

The argument is actually is nto about Americans carign but rather them being exposed to the sports and NHL players more than by NHL games.

 

[Xokkeu]

If it's a non nhl Team Canada I MAY watch just out of sheer loyalty to the team but it is going to be a game time decision of sorts. Even I have my limits and going back to a hand me down Team Canada and worse yet at ungodly hours of the day is going to test those limits.

And even if I do watch this potential watered down minor league stuff, a tournament of that significance (very low imo) is not going to move me much.

The genie is out of the bottle for me and most Canadian fans concerning olympic hockey, you can't put it back in, for us at least.

The issue is. From the IOC perspective. If they only take a hit in Canada..... Do they care?

 

[Nino33]

The argument is actually is nto about Americans carign but rather them being exposed to the sports and NHL players more than by NHL games.

I know I'm not alone in thinking there's to many teams now, and the hockey is "watered down" and not as compelling as a result + they (owners and players) are making enough money...I also know I'm not alone in thinking there's no need to expose the game more to more people (growth is not always a good thing!)

And of course people are allowed to have differing opinions

 

[jj cale]

The issue is. From the IOC perspective. If they only take a hit in Canada..... Do they care?

Nope.

 

[Xokkeu]

Nope.

Sad truth

 

[kurt]

Referring to the athletes as workers is rather asinine since they don't jsut show up for work liek normal workers. They have to meet qualifying limits or win qualifying tournaments to be able to compete there.

ah ok

 

[jj cale]

Sad truth

Yeah, Canada is just too small in numbers and does not have the clout financially to make them think twice about bending somewhat to meet any wishes of the NHL (not that the NHL is free of criticism either)

Now if hockey ratings took a serious nosedive in the U.S that would be another story, but like you said, ratings there for olympic hockey will not be affected much.

I really do not hold out much hope anymore for the NHL being involved in the future, the owners do not seem to want to go, they need to see the benefit to them of participating and in their defense there has not been any.

 

[Nino33]

I'm really not sure why there's so much confidence in US Olympic ratings being maintained...they certainly weren't with the recent summer Olympics https://www.google.ca/#q=brazil+olympic+ratings+down (and the time differences with South Korea are going to be more to overcome than they were with Brazil)

And given the last time the NHL wasn't involved was almost a quarter century ago, I'm not sure why there's such confidence in US Olympic hockey ratings not being affected by the lack of NHL players

 

[jj cale]

I'm really not sure why there's so much confidence in US Olympic ratings being maintained...they certainly weren't with the recent summer Olympics https://www.google.ca/#q=brazil+olympic+ratings+down (and the time differences with South Korea are going to be more to overcome than they were with Brazil)

And given the last time the NHL wasn't involved was almost a quarter century ago, I'm not sure why there's such confidence in US Olympic hockey ratings not being affected by the lack of NHL players

As was admitted, time zone will be a problem but nhl participation probably won't. The majority of American fans watching don't even know who the nhl players are, you can basically put anyone in there and slap a U.S.A jersey on them and most American watchers won't bat an eye, they will still watch due to miracle on ice history and all, the actual players involved makes little if any difference to most of the people watching in the U.S.

 

[Nino33]

As was admitted, time zone will be a problem but nhl participation probably won't. The majority of American fans watching don't even know who the nhl players are, you can basically put anyone in there and slap a U.S.A jersey on them and most American watchers won't bat an eye, they will still watch due to miracle on ice history and all, the actual players involved makes little if any difference to most of the people watching in the U.S.

Are you sure NBC will "showcase" hockey with no NHL players? If the US does poorly, do you think the US TV audience will have much interest in other/European teams? Or will NBC instead show other events where Americans have a chance at a medal?

Going back to the Miracle on Ice, the only live game was the last one against Finland (because the broadcaster didn't have hockey as a priority, because the US wasn't expect to do well.....I think if the NHL players aren't there that could happen again, where hockey isn't a priority for coverage)

 

[holyprime]

[mod]

I just hope it really bites the NHL in the ass, if they are actually as greedy as the OP describes.

 

[Xokkeu]

Are you sure NBC will "showcase" hockey with no NHL players? If the US does poorly, do you think the US TV audience will have much interest in other/European teams? Or will NBC instead show other events where Americans have a chance at a medal?

Going back to the Miracle on Ice, the only live game was the last one against Finland (because the broadcaster didn't have hockey as a priority, because the US wasn't expect to do well.....I think if the NHL players aren't there that could happen again, where hockey isn't a priority for coverage)

Media market is a lot different than the 1980s. All the late knockout games will be on TV for sure. I mean they run coverage on like 12 channels now. Even without the US the gold medal game will probably be on NBC just because the last day of the games there isn't much on and it's a medal game.

 

[Xokkeu]

Yeah, Canada is just too small in numbers and does not have the clout financially to make them think twice about bending somewhat to meet any wishes of the NHL (not that the NHL is free of criticism either)

Now if hockey ratings took a serious nosedive in the U.S that would be another story, but like you said, ratings there for olympic hockey will not be affected much.

I really do not hold out much hope anymore for the NHL being involved in the future, the owners do not seem to want to go, they need to see the benefit to them of participating and in their defense there has not been any.

Frankly I think the iihf will end up paying the insurance costs. Which is unfortunate for hockey development but selfishly good for my entertainment.

 

[Nino33]

Media market is a lot different than the 1980s. All the late knockout games will be on TV for sure. I mean they run coverage on like 12 channels now.

Fair point [back then, in Canada, you had 3 channels without cable (one being French) and 12 total channels with cable HaHa]

 

[jj cale]

Frankly I think the iihf will end up paying the insurance costs. Which is unfortunate for hockey development but selfishly good for my entertainment.

You really think the IIHF will cough up the dough? hmm, not sure about that.

If they do how do you think it is bad for the development for the game? less money to spend on infrastructure projects in non traditional or beginning stages markets?

 

[jj cale]

Are you sure NBC will "showcase" hockey with no NHL players? If the US does poorly, do you think the US TV audience will have much interest in other/European teams? Or will NBC instead show other events where Americans have a chance at a medal?

Going back to the Miracle on Ice, the only live game was the last one against Finland (because the broadcaster didn't have hockey as a priority, because the US wasn't expect to do well.....I think if the NHL players aren't there that could happen again, where hockey isn't a priority for coverage)

I think they will still showcase it for sure, especially with coverage being so much more then it used to be. The miracle on ice happening in 1980 basically assures that to be frank. They did a poll a few years back asking americans what they thought was the
biggest sporting event that happened in their lifetime and you know what was the winner?...............the miracle on ice, I think it was pretty hands down to boot!! This in a country where hockey is mostly an afterthought.

Not only that but the winter olympics just does not have the sex appeal of the summer olympics in terms of events that people clamor for, they basically have to showcase hockey. It is the or at the very least 2nd crown jewel of the winter games after figure skating.

It will be showcased in U.S television olympic winter games coverage, nhl players or not.

I mean, what could they showcase instead of it? cross country skiing?

 

[sandysan]

As was admitted, time zone will be a problem but nhl participation probably won't. The majority of American fans watching don't even know who the nhl players are, you can basically put anyone in there and slap a U.S.A jersey on them and most American watchers won't bat an eye, they will still watch due to miracle on ice history and all, the actual players involved makes little if any difference to most of the people watching in the U.S.

If this were true, then what was the incentive to get pros in the first place ? It seems like a huge headache when, if as you argue, that the IOC could put ANYONE on the ice and everyone would just " baaaaaaaah" and watch.

The olympics existed for a very long time without the participation of pros ( with a short period where pros from some countries were allowed to participate so long as they self identified as soldiers) but made a conscious decision to rewrite the mission statement so that pros COULD be included.

If the IOC were playing with house money, why the hell would they even try this ?
perhaps because they though that the inclusion of the best players on the planet would INCREASE viewership. If that's the case, I cannot rationalize how losing these very players who were brought in to increase viewership wouldn't lead to a decrease.

 

[Xokkeu]

If this were true, then what was the incentive to get pros in the first place ? It seems like a huge headache when, if as you argue, that the IOC could put ANYONE on the ice and everyone would just " baaaaaaaah" and watch.

The olympics existed for a very long time without the participation of pros ( with a short period where pros from some countries were allowed to participate so long as they self identified as soldiers) but made a conscious decision to rewrite the mission statement so that pros COULD be included.

If the IOC were playing with house money, why the hell would they even try this ?
perhaps because they though that the inclusion of the best players on the planet would INCREASE viewership. If that's the case, I cannot rationalize how losing these very players who were brought in to increase viewership wouldn't lead to a decrease.

IOC perspective is free talent. So why not.

NHL sent their players with the idea that casual fans would watch and get hooked and move to watching NHL games.

 

[sandysan]

IOC perspective is free talent. So why not.

NHL sent their players with the idea that casual fans would watch and get hooked and move to watching NHL games.

which never worked out. I can see how both would have liked for more interest in hockey in the NHL and in the olympics, the former hasn't happened but to say the latter hasn't is kind of a stretch.

The " face" of sochi was a NHL player and like with the dream team the IOC decided to trade on the already established fame of these players to increase viewership FOR THEIR tournament ( its clear they don't give a crap about the NHL's viewership).

I don't know what will happen, my guess is that the NHL and NBC want to actually see what happens if team never-were's plays team has-beens. If the ratings dont go down, then its clear that the olympics are not about the level of competition ( sorta like the world shampionships) If they do, the NHL is in the driver's seat when it comes to potential participation in china because they can weild the world cup like the sword of damocles.

 

[jj cale]

If this were true, then what was the incentive to get pros in the first place ? It seems like a huge headache when, if as you argue, that the IOC could put ANYONE on the ice and everyone would just " baaaaaaaah" and watch.

The olympics existed for a very long time without the participation of pros ( with a short period where pros from some countries were allowed to participate so long as they self identified as soldiers) but made a conscious decision to rewrite the mission statement so that pros COULD be included.

If the IOC were playing with house money, why the hell would they even try this ?
perhaps because they though that the inclusion of the best players on the planet would INCREASE viewership. If that's the case, I cannot rationalize how losing these very players who were brought in to increase viewership wouldn't lead to a decrease.

I don't know if it led to an increase in hockey watching for the olympics,I don't have the numbers. And I pretty am sure it will lead to a slight decrease without them but enough for the I.O.C to hurt them enough to care? I doubt it, I can see only see them taking a substantial hit in Canada without nhl'ers and that just isn't a significant enough base to really worry about for them. The rest of the population that tunes into olympic hockey every winter games probably won't change much since it is probably one of the few and in many cases only time they ever watch hockey anyway. The absence of NHL players shouldn't affect that I don't think.They will still watch because they always watch hockey at the olympics.

I do suspect that since the I.O.C doesn't seem to be eager in paying out the insurance costs and whatnot that the NHl wants taken care of then nhl participation did not have the increased viewer effect they were hoping for and are content to go back to the old status quo if need be.

 

[Bjorn Le]

People can't think of the NHL's cost and benefits as so black and white. It's not to rapidly hook a large amount of viewers to suddenly start watching hockey and spending money on their league. It's part of a larger project of growing the game and gaining national media exposure, in the US most importantly but also in other locales. It's not a zero sum game, where it either works or doesn't work. Which is also why the NHL has leverage and the space to reject the IOC and not go to Pyongchang. They don't need the Olympics, sure, they miss out on exposure and an opportunity to grow the game, but their project of growing the game isn't significantly set back. At the same time, on principle it is poor practice for the NHL, whose job is not only to grow the game but also to provide a profitable context for their 30 stakeholders, to foot the bill. Hockey at the Winter Olympics is a mutually beneficial arrangement, however, it is not fair for the IOC to bear none of the burden. Let's not pretend the IOC is revenue-neutral either; IOC executives take their "share" as well.

What Lawless says goes without saying, and unless the IOC has a change of heart (they won't), the NHL won't go to Pyongchang. The IOC thinks they have all the leverage and they can't understand why a federation wouldn't want to be part of their show. At least the IIHF and NHL are more or less on the same page with this. And as others have started, this does not preclude NHL participation in the Olympics moving forward; it's highly likely they go to Beijing in 2022 and I would also say it's highly likely that if the IOC does not waver, the PRC will pay the NHL's insurance.

 

[jj cale]

People can't think of the NHL's cost and benefits as so black and white. It's not to rapidly hook a large amount of viewers to suddenly start watching hockey and spending money on their league. It's part of a larger project of growing the game and gaining national media exposure, in the US most importantly but also in other locales. It's not a zero sum game, where it either works or doesn't work. Which is also why the NHL has leverage and the space to reject the IOC and not go to Pyongchang. They don't need the Olympics, sure, they miss out on exposure and an opportunity to grow the game, but their project of growing the game isn't significantly set back. At the same time, on principle it is poor practice for the NHL, whose job is not only to grow the game but also to provide a profitable context for their 30 stakeholders, to foot the bill. Hockey at the Winter Olympics is a mutually beneficial arrangement, however, it is not fair for the IOC to bear none of the burden. Let's not pretend the IOC is revenue-neutral either; IOC executives take their "share" as well.

What Lawless says goes without saying, and unless the IOC has a change of heart (they won't), the NHL won't go to Pyongchang. The IOC thinks they have all the leverage and they can't understand why a federation wouldn't want to be part of their show. At least the IIHF and NHL are more or less on the same page with this. And as others have started, this does not preclude NHL participation in the Olympics moving forward; it's highly likely they go to Beijing in 2022 and I would also say it's highly likely that if the IOC does not waver, the PRC will pay the NHL's insurance.

This is a good even sided post that highlights both ends of the spectrum I think.

We will have to wait it out and see what transpires I guess, there is still more then enough time to get it all settled in time for the next games.

 

[Xokkeu]

which never worked out. I can see how both would have liked for more interest in hockey in the NHL and in the olympics, the former hasn't happened but to say the latter hasn't is kind of a stretch.

The " face" of sochi was a NHL player and like with the dream team the IOC decided to trade on the already established fame of these players to increase viewership FOR THEIR tournament ( its clear they don't give a crap about the NHL's viewership).

I don't know what will happen, my guess is that the NHL and NBC want to actually see what happens if team never-were's plays team has-beens. If the ratings dont go down, then its clear that the olympics are not about the level of competition ( sorta like the world shampionships) If they do, the NHL is in the driver's seat when it comes to potential participation in china because they can weild the world cup like the sword of damocles.

What never worked out? NHL growth from Olympics? That's completely unmeasurable which is the main problem. A lot easier to look at Seth jones and Austin Mathews and say oh sun belt expansion was a major success. But there's no metric to judge Olympic participation short of twenty years from now some new country becomes a hockey power and and the next Kopitar says oh I really loved basketball but saw the Olympics and decided to play hockey.