Star Ocean
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2018
- 3,583
- 2,003
How is it not popular when players like ovechkin, malkin, kucherov, kane, eichel etc wants to play?
It is popular.
It is popular.
Why is international hockey not popular?
- Thread starter Justshootmore
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
BurntToast
Registered User
Major Reason!! Time difference. There are only a few occasions where it’s played in NA. Even then a game in Vancouver will be harder for people on the east coast to watch. When the tourney takes place in Europe the games play between the morning news and Judge Judy. Most of us are working or living life. Plus, it’s the beginning of summer and people want out of the house. WNBA has struggled and Baseball is on the decline. Furthermore, hockey is the most Niche sport and America is a political mess. If you don’t see a player from your fave team most wont watch for it. US national pride is a tad low..
I'm not quite certain what OP means by "popularity". Is it that international hockey is not popular among spectators, or that players don't seem too eager to participate in international tournaments?
If it's the former, the answer is rather simple - hockey is not a big enough sport to garner global popularity, mainly because it is a so-called "welfare sport". Simply put, you need money to both play hockey and upkeep hockey infrastructure. You need equipment to play hockey, and you need ice, either natural or a place with an indoor rink. Contrast soccer, what do you need to set up a game? A large enough patch of flat ground and a ball. I'm sure you can do the math now.
As for top players seemingly not being so huge on international hockey, there was a comment about "there being too many tournaments". That's more or less it, in a nutshell. The WHC for example, is an annual event. Most teamsports, the events are either biannual or every four years. If the IIHF championship was every 4th year (or cycling every 2nd with the Olympics), it would be a much bigger deal to the players, and they'd be much more eager to participate.
Now, even if soccer doesn't have a major tournament, I'm aware that there is practically top-level international soccer being played every year, in the form of various qualifications. And those qualifications are generally played with the best players each country has. This is where we come back to the hockey not being globally popular. Because it isn't, and there are only a handful of countries that are truly competitive, running qualifications in the off years would lead to pools with ridiculous differences in player skill. IIHF hockey is tiered because it guarantees that each opponent will play opponents that roughly on their level. Nobody wants to see a "qualification pool" with, say, Sweden and Bulgaria in the same group. In soccer, that could be a match-up worth watching. In hockey, it would be a bloodbath even if Sweden didn't have any NHLers and even invited a bunch of tier-2 Allsvenskan players for giggles. Nobody would tune into games like that.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if the question was about the popularity among potential audiences or player enthusiasm. Both are related to the answer. If hockey was more popular globally, it would mean there would be more competitive countries and it would lead to more worthwhile games even if the marquee event was not held annually. But as it is, the options are either to have some meaningful international hockey every year, which means the top level players' interest to participate suffers an inflation, or shut down most operations in the off years, because the marquee event would also have to act as a qualification for the next scheduled tournament, just like it is now. Sure, there could be some meaningful annual games outside the IIHF framework, such as the EHT - in fact, in such an environment, winning the four-leg tour title could become a much bigger deal from the mere afterthought it is now, barely worth half a "yay". But even this wouldn't help in getting the NHLers to participate more often, because it would still be mainly played among players from various European leagues.
Despite all of the above, I'm not saying things couldn't be better. In my ideal world, the WHC would be played every 4th year, in the same timeframe as the olympics, so that there would essentially be a biannual cycle of major tournament hockey. The NHL would be fully on board and schedule breaks around the tournaments. For the off years, the IIHF could run the various lower division championships. This could also raise the profile of those tournaments. Okay, now, anybody have any ideas on how to get the NHL commissars and owners agree to this...?
If it's the former, the answer is rather simple - hockey is not a big enough sport to garner global popularity, mainly because it is a so-called "welfare sport". Simply put, you need money to both play hockey and upkeep hockey infrastructure. You need equipment to play hockey, and you need ice, either natural or a place with an indoor rink. Contrast soccer, what do you need to set up a game? A large enough patch of flat ground and a ball. I'm sure you can do the math now.
As for top players seemingly not being so huge on international hockey, there was a comment about "there being too many tournaments". That's more or less it, in a nutshell. The WHC for example, is an annual event. Most teamsports, the events are either biannual or every four years. If the IIHF championship was every 4th year (or cycling every 2nd with the Olympics), it would be a much bigger deal to the players, and they'd be much more eager to participate.
Now, even if soccer doesn't have a major tournament, I'm aware that there is practically top-level international soccer being played every year, in the form of various qualifications. And those qualifications are generally played with the best players each country has. This is where we come back to the hockey not being globally popular. Because it isn't, and there are only a handful of countries that are truly competitive, running qualifications in the off years would lead to pools with ridiculous differences in player skill. IIHF hockey is tiered because it guarantees that each opponent will play opponents that roughly on their level. Nobody wants to see a "qualification pool" with, say, Sweden and Bulgaria in the same group. In soccer, that could be a match-up worth watching. In hockey, it would be a bloodbath even if Sweden didn't have any NHLers and even invited a bunch of tier-2 Allsvenskan players for giggles. Nobody would tune into games like that.
In the end, it doesn't really matter if the question was about the popularity among potential audiences or player enthusiasm. Both are related to the answer. If hockey was more popular globally, it would mean there would be more competitive countries and it would lead to more worthwhile games even if the marquee event was not held annually. But as it is, the options are either to have some meaningful international hockey every year, which means the top level players' interest to participate suffers an inflation, or shut down most operations in the off years, because the marquee event would also have to act as a qualification for the next scheduled tournament, just like it is now. Sure, there could be some meaningful annual games outside the IIHF framework, such as the EHT - in fact, in such an environment, winning the four-leg tour title could become a much bigger deal from the mere afterthought it is now, barely worth half a "yay". But even this wouldn't help in getting the NHLers to participate more often, because it would still be mainly played among players from various European leagues.
Despite all of the above, I'm not saying things couldn't be better. In my ideal world, the WHC would be played every 4th year, in the same timeframe as the olympics, so that there would essentially be a biannual cycle of major tournament hockey. The NHL would be fully on board and schedule breaks around the tournaments. For the off years, the IIHF could run the various lower division championships. This could also raise the profile of those tournaments. Okay, now, anybody have any ideas on how to get the NHL commissars and owners agree to this...?
Last edited:
It's popular, except in NA.
It's not popular in NA largely because stanley cup playoffs are still going on. But that's the fault of NHL. It's ridiculous having a winter game season until the middle of summer. The season's too long and starts too late. But milking money's important.
It's not popular in NA largely because stanley cup playoffs are still going on. But that's the fault of NHL. It's ridiculous having a winter game season until the middle of summer. The season's too long and starts too late. But milking money's important.
What format could these lower division championships assume if the big tournament takes place only every four years? It would rather risk negatively impacting the majority of IIHF members.
I think it is pretty popular at least in the European countries where hockey is popular. Not so much in the North America. Of course it cannot be compared to the soccer World Cup: Hockey is a minor sport compared to soccer, which is the most popular sport worldwide.
CaptTennille
President of the Blair Betts Fan Club
*Time differences depending on the host country
*Lack of coverage in the US (have to have access to the NHL Network)
*Conditioned by NHL Playoffs to consider it a "consolation tournament" instead of it's own unique tournament.
*Declining of invites due to injury/contract status/mental fatigue/interest etc.
These are just some of the speculative reasons for why I believe it doesn't have much traction in the United States.
I can't speak to it's popularity in Canada or elsewhere.
*Lack of coverage in the US (have to have access to the NHL Network)
*Conditioned by NHL Playoffs to consider it a "consolation tournament" instead of it's own unique tournament.
*Declining of invites due to injury/contract status/mental fatigue/interest etc.
These are just some of the speculative reasons for why I believe it doesn't have much traction in the United States.
I can't speak to it's popularity in Canada or elsewhere.
They could still be held biannually, on the off years. If the next year was a WHC year, the two best would get a spot in that tournament. If there were olympics coming up, the two best would get to participate in the olympic qualification. The format for the latter could be the best 10 of the last WHC qualifying automatically, and the remaining four plus two best from Div I would play for the two remaining spots.
And maybe make it so that the divisions would also be played on the alternating years, so that the Div II winners would get to play in Div I next year, and so forth.
Last edited:
Star Ocean
Registered User
- Dec 30, 2018
- 3,583
- 2,003
I dont understand why NHL season cant start in september and end in may.
Because money, my boy. They're trying to maximize the visibility between the calendars of the other three major North American sports leagues - NFL, NBA and MLB.
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
Bear of Bad News
Now 25% more unBearable!
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,991
- 31,010
Wouldn't it be more difficult in terms of sponsorship money and all that if any realistic chance of playing at the top level would be eliminated or at least reduced to only every four years? I think such changes would only benefit the big few hockey countries at the expense of everyone else.
the4thlinegrinder
Registered User
It’s not a problem with international hockey, it’s a problem with the World Championship. The World Junior tournament and the Olympics (men and women) are very popular in Canada. I believe this is because the WJHC (which is not best on best as the top eligible players are likely in the NHL) is very often played in NA and the games are on in prime time. The Olympics is the top sports event in the world (maybe second after the FIFA WC) so naturally that will draw attention, plus the top players competed in the Olympics for 5 tournaments in a row until last year.
Compare that to the WHC. It’s played during the day in NA when people are at work/school. The top players for CAN and USA are often not playing. It simply doesn’t generate that much interest. I’d be willing to bet that most Canadian hockey fans couldn’t name 5 players on this year’s roster as hockey fans here are focused on the SC playoffs.
Compare that to the WHC. It’s played during the day in NA when people are at work/school. The top players for CAN and USA are often not playing. It simply doesn’t generate that much interest. I’d be willing to bet that most Canadian hockey fans couldn’t name 5 players on this year’s roster as hockey fans here are focused on the SC playoffs.
For those who grew up in North America, there's nothing bigger in hockey than the Stanley Cup. The Olympics seem to be a big deal also in America; I'm sure every American player would love to win at the Olympics. (But not as much as they want the Stanley Cup so there's not that much pressure to let them play at the Olympics.) And while the Olympics get big attention in America, it seems the world championships in many Olympic sports get kinda ignored in America where the sports culture is dominated by big professional leagues. A world championship taking place simultaneously with a Stanley Cup is thus hard to sell to the North American crowd, even if time zones weren't a problem.
On the other hand, Europe lacks the kind of undisputed top league in almost every team sport which all have domestic leagues. National team competitions are the best chance to see almost all the best players (at least from European leagues).
The IIHF Worlds every year is a bit of an overkill. Then again, being an annual event is okay for a second-tier event. A tournament played simultaneously with the Stanley Cup Playoffs is never going to be a big deal, at least in the sense of the FIFA World Cup/UEFA Euros. The players from the European leagues are happy to be big names for two weeks every year but the NHL players don't have the need for that, even if they were already out from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But regardless of who are playing, it's an annual tradition for most European fans. If anything, less frequent IIHF Worlds with some NHL players missing might weaken the tradition among the fans.
The World Cup has never become a tradition so it isn't seen as a premier event, regardless of its format (2004 vs. 2016). Maybe if it was played every two/four years long enough, it could be seen as the ultimate prize in international play but unfortunately it's disappearing once again.
The Olympics have the most potential to attract players from any country. Unfortunately accommodating an Olympic break into the NHL would come at a cost to the League. I'm not blaming the NHL for that; they need to think what's best for the League in the competition against other major sports in the North American market. The concessions the NHL would demand from the IOC are not exorbitant. The NHL would be losing money while the IOC would be making money. The IOC is no charity, it's doing business in sports entertainment just like the professional leagues are. That being said, the IOC isn't making any concessions, already because it'd open a can of worms other professional leagues would try to benefit from.
The way things are, it seems like the ship has sailed for the best-on-best Olympics and I can't see the NHL having a break for any other international tournament either. The IIHF can't wait till June for the Stanley Cup Playoffs to finish before the Worlds. A regularly played fall event might be the only solution to bring back a best-on-best international tournament. But there's no way I'd see the IIHF doing such changes to their milk cow. And unfortunately the NHL doesn't seem to have enough commitment in hosting the World Cup regularly.
On the other hand, Europe lacks the kind of undisputed top league in almost every team sport which all have domestic leagues. National team competitions are the best chance to see almost all the best players (at least from European leagues).
The IIHF Worlds every year is a bit of an overkill. Then again, being an annual event is okay for a second-tier event. A tournament played simultaneously with the Stanley Cup Playoffs is never going to be a big deal, at least in the sense of the FIFA World Cup/UEFA Euros. The players from the European leagues are happy to be big names for two weeks every year but the NHL players don't have the need for that, even if they were already out from the Stanley Cup Playoffs. But regardless of who are playing, it's an annual tradition for most European fans. If anything, less frequent IIHF Worlds with some NHL players missing might weaken the tradition among the fans.
The World Cup has never become a tradition so it isn't seen as a premier event, regardless of its format (2004 vs. 2016). Maybe if it was played every two/four years long enough, it could be seen as the ultimate prize in international play but unfortunately it's disappearing once again.
The Olympics have the most potential to attract players from any country. Unfortunately accommodating an Olympic break into the NHL would come at a cost to the League. I'm not blaming the NHL for that; they need to think what's best for the League in the competition against other major sports in the North American market. The concessions the NHL would demand from the IOC are not exorbitant. The NHL would be losing money while the IOC would be making money. The IOC is no charity, it's doing business in sports entertainment just like the professional leagues are. That being said, the IOC isn't making any concessions, already because it'd open a can of worms other professional leagues would try to benefit from.
The way things are, it seems like the ship has sailed for the best-on-best Olympics and I can't see the NHL having a break for any other international tournament either. The IIHF can't wait till June for the Stanley Cup Playoffs to finish before the Worlds. A regularly played fall event might be the only solution to bring back a best-on-best international tournament. But there's no way I'd see the IIHF doing such changes to their milk cow. And unfortunately the NHL doesn't seem to have enough commitment in hosting the World Cup regularly.
Last edited:
How can you mock it for something IIHF cannot change, it’s not like it’s not best on best purposely, it’s NHL fault.
Bruce Granville
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2014
- 6,128
- 4,894
But whose fault is is? Because of NHL schedule it would not work in any other date. IIHF would appreciate if it took place in USA, seeing WJC in Buffalo last year, it would not draw much attention anyway.
Probably because of how the NHL set it up. It’s during the playoffs and the teams are made up of players that either didn’t make the playoffs or got bounced early.
If they were smart they’d make it before the season opener or after the playoffs
If they were smart they’d make it before the season opener or after the playoffs
SupremeNachos
Registered User
I think OP should have been more specific, but I don't think he is talking about Olympic participation.
