World Cup TV ratings

[BruinLVGA]

They have been involved in the Olympics for 20 years. The issue is they havent seem ANY short OR long term gains from it. So why do it?

It depends on what you describe as "gains". I think that the fact that you see now a good deal of players from non-traditional nations (in the sense of those who historically have not being contributing players to the NHL), is a gain for the NHL. A very significant gain because it improves the product (= the NHL). For example, how many Swiss players were in the NHL 20 years ago and how many now?

There isn't the need for any sort of complicated thought process to know that hockey is a brutally marginal sport world wide. Knowing that young people, who are the future, get carpet bombed with soccer isn't difficult to imagine either.
The most exposure the most meaningful & best hockey has, the highest the chances that the kid who is undecided about taking up hockey or soccer will choose hockey. What is the best exposure? The Olympics, which is a competition that everyone in the whole world knows. Furthermore, it's a competition that doesn't exclude anyone by default like the NHL's World Cup (excluding folks is the best way to turn someone away from a sport), it welcomes everyone. If you are good enough (via results), you can play. If you are presently not good enough, you know you have a chance, you can do it, if you perform well. With the NHL's World Cup, you have no chance. It tells people "we don't want you".

If it wasn't already clear by what I wrote, the gain that the NHL can have is first and foremost by increasing the fan base, which can improve the odds of seeing strong players pop up from other less than usual places (read one of the latest Players Tribune articles where Beleskey writes about his trip to CHINA with Pastrnak this summer, for the purpose of growing the game there... This is not a figment of my imagination...).
Then, if the NHL can actually make an effort to gain traction in Europe, it would be beneficial for them (not only for increasing the odds of seeing more players come out of Europe, but also merchandise sales, NHL.tv subscriptions, etc etc). Say for example show ONE matinee game per weekend on all European TVs at a nominal fee or even for free for the moment. Make it the "Saturday night NHL hockey live". Make it a tradition. Make themselves be known, instead of being a mysterious and irrelevant - in comparison to soccer or even the home hockey leagues - object.

The possibilities might not be endless, but most definitely not non-existent either. So far, the NHL is purely and squarely concentrating on the North American market. They're concentrating on a 360 million people market and ignoring a 7+ billion world (I am sure that a small bit of these 7 billion people could realistically become a worthwhile market for them... But Europe + Russia it's roughly 700 million people... Not a tiny amount). You tell me if that makes sense and if that doesn't have any possibility of expansion.Obviously stuff like this is a long term objective, but one that I strongly believe it's worth pursuing.

 

[masa2009]

Switzerland had a long hockey tradition, and was always due to become a solid program.
It's a cold weather country, they are too small to have strong nat'l teams in sports with traditionally bigger participation, they have the money for infrastructures...
Their rise started before Nagano.
They made the semis at the 1998 IHWC, and while the IHWC are a good notch below the Olympics in terms of quality, getting to the semis is still a feat few nations outside of a core group can achieve.

On the other hand, larger countries with more diverse geography and a more competitive sports landscape, like Germany which has consistently been touted as the next breakthrough nation, has never made it.
At one point, Germany was seen as a nation with better prospects than Finland.
But there is just too much competition from more accessible sports in such large countries, whereas Finland is a small, winter sport country with limited success in cheaper sports.

The NHL in the Olympics has little to do with that. It is a simple combination of climate, economics and demographics.

 

[JackSlater]

You're a fountain of misinformation.

Game was 4pm in Sochi. Therfore it aired at 9am in the east and 6 am in the west. Plus it was a Sunday so you had a large audience.

Nobody expected Olympic numbers for this tournament. It's going to appeal to hockey fans, not to casual fans.

World Championship is a meaningless tournament, its like an exhibiting for players who missed the NHL playoffs. The WCOH is legit best on best.

... that game started at 7 AM Eastern, 4 AM Pacific. Don't let that stop you from trying to spin the terrible ratings into a positive though. It is entertaining to watch.

 

[Barrie22]

You're a fountain of misinformation.

Game was 4pm in Sochi. Therfore it aired at 9am in the east and 6 am in the west. Plus it was a Sunday so you had a large audience.

Nobody expected Olympic numbers for this tournament. It's going to appeal to hockey fans, not to casual fans.

World Championship is a meaningless tournament, its like an exhibiting for players who missed the NHL playoffs. The WCOH is legit best on best.

It aired at 7am east. It was over by 9am lol. 9:19am was the final horn.

 

[Mad Brills*]

Yeah, the gold medal game was on a sunday morning. Everyone woke up for the game.

 

[Gary Nylund]

They do. I don't.

When I read people saying things like "oh no the ratings in the US are down", all I can focus on is how much I do not care.

It doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game. Why would it?

You're not alone. I've read so many times how Olympic hockey > World Cup because more people are watching and my response is always the same - who cares? Most of those people would also watch wrestling pigs if it was an Olympic event, what possible impact could this have on my enjoyment of hockey?

Switzerland had a long hockey tradition, and was always due to become a solid program.
It's a cold weather country, they are too small to have strong nat'l teams in sports with traditionally bigger participation, they have the money for infrastructures...
Their rise started before Nagano.
They made the semis at the 1998 IHWC, and while the IHWC are a good notch below the Olympics in terms of quality, getting to the semis is still a feat few nations outside of a core group can achieve.

On the other hand, larger countries with more diverse geography and a more competitive sports landscape, like Germany which has consistently been touted as the next breakthrough nation, has never made it.
At one point, Germany was seen as a nation with better prospects than Finland.
But there is just too much competition from more accessible sports in such large countries, whereas Finland is a small, winter sport country with limited success in cheaper sports.

The NHL in the Olympics has little to do with that. It is a simple combination of climate, economics and demographics.

 

[xxxx]

Yeah, the gold medal game was on a sunday morning. Everyone woke up for the game.

Everyone? Assuming you talk about Canada:


The average tv audience for the 2010 olympic gold-medal game was higher than peak of the 2014 gold-medal game.

The peak in 2014 was 15 million, in Vancouver it was 16 million the average (8.5 in Sochi) The peak in 2010 was over 26 million.


If it's true, than while over 80% of population watched at least some part of the gold-medal game in Vancouver, it was half of that, about 43% in Sochi, and we're takling about PEAK. So not everyone really.

 

[Jonimaus]

"Men publiksiffrorna är inget som oroar NHL (som arrangerar turneringen).
– Vi gör inte det här för att tjäna pengar. Vi gör det här för att sporten ska växa. Sedan handlar det om att skapa hajp och intresse inför NHL-säsongen, som börjar snart, har NHL:s ligakommissionär Gary Bettman nyligen sagt, apropÃ¥ de lÃ¥ga publiksiffrorna."

Roughly translated:
NHL are not worried about the terrible audience
- We are not doing this to make money, we are doing it to grow the sport. It's also about creating hype and intress for NHL, Gary Bettman says.

If they are doing it to grow the sport they are doing an insanely bad job. I don't think this tournament is helping grow the sport anywhere, if anything it has the opposit effect.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/hockey/landslag/worldcup/article23592463.ab Article from Swedens biggest newspaper, if anyone is interested in google translating it for themselves.

 

[Henri M]

So I understand that the Sweden-Europe game is far from sold out and that there are actually 6$ tickets available. Terrible optics if there are a number of empty seat. I mean this is Toronto we are talking about, the home of hockey, where they will sell out anything hockey related. I guess even torontians have their breaking point.

The results of a meaningless tournament.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

So I understand that the Sweden-Europe game is far from sold out and that there are actually 6$ tickets available. Terrible optics if there are a number of empty seat. I mean this is Toronto we are talking about, the home of hockey, where they will sell out anything hockey related. I guess even torontians have their breaking point.

My understanding of Toronto is it's a leafs town before a "hockey" town.

Feel free to correct me Toronto residents.

 

[The Drop]

So I understand that the Sweden-Europe game is far from sold out and that there are actually 6$ tickets available. Terrible optics if there are a number of empty seat. I mean this is Toronto we are talking about, the home of hockey, where they will sell out anything hockey related. I guess even torontians have their breaking point.

Montreal would have had way better attendance.

Toronto is a Leaf town. Not a hockey town or even a sports town.

 

[syc]

"Men publiksiffrorna är inget som oroar NHL (som arrangerar turneringen).
– Vi gör inte det här för att tjäna pengar. Vi gör det här för att sporten ska växa. Sedan handlar det om att skapa hajp och intresse inför NHL-säsongen, som börjar snart, har NHL:s ligakommissionär Gary Bettman nyligen sagt, apropå de låga publiksiffrorna."

Roughly translated:
NHL are not worried about the terrible audience
- We are not doing this to make money, we are doing it to grow the sport. It's also about creating hype and intress for NHL, Gary Bettman says.

If they are doing it to grow the sport they are doing an insanely bad job. I don't think this tournament is helping grow the sport anywhere, if anything it has the opposit effect.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/hockey/landslag/worldcup/article23592463.ab Article from Swedens biggest newspaper, if anyone is interested in google translating it for themselves.

Bettman also claimed the thrashers were not going anywhere three weeks before they announced the team is going to Winnipeg.

The man is a lawyer which should explain a lot.

 

[syc]

Montreal would have had way better attendance.

Toronto is a Leaf town. Not a hockey town or even a sports town.

Is it 1952?

The last wjc which was cohosted by both cities which city had a hard time filling the building? I remember it being Montreal but maybe you get different information in Vancouver.

Look at current nhlers born in the Gta vs players born in Montreal? Or shall we just look at players drafted by nhl teams over the last decade from these two cities? Any metric you look at will show Torontos current dominance over Montreal.

 

[gattaca]

Montreal would have had way better attendance.

Toronto is a Leaf town. Not a hockey town or even a sports town.

Not based on the recent World Juniors. Montreal didn't even sell out Canada games.

Toronto maybe a Leafs town but there is a lot more of disposable income around which is why there was 25k+ at TFC, 45k+ for Jays and 18k at ACC for 3 events played around the same time yesterday.

 

[xxxx]

The results of a meaningless tournament.

9 out of 13 games so far had the attendance of 18,926+ people.
3 games had about 12,000; one (Czechs-Europe at 3pm) had 8 and a half.


For comparision, at the 2014 olympics, the two venues' capacity for men's ice hockey tournament was 7,000 and 12,000. The QF game between the USA and the Czech republic had the attendance of 4,606 people. Not one from the 4 medal-games (2 semifinals + one bronze-medal game and one gold-medal game) was sold out, and we are talking about arena that had capacity of 12,000, not 20. And the attendance for two of those 4 games was just above 9,000. At the olympics. One semfinal and one bronze-medal game. At the olympics.

Here, again, 9 out of 13 games had attendace of roughly 19,000+ and 3 of the remaining 4 games had about 12,000.

That's just putting things into perspective a little bit. IF such a tournament was held somewhere in Europe, the attendance would be nowhere that good, no matter if with gimmicky teams or not.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

"Men publiksiffrorna är inget som oroar NHL (som arrangerar turneringen).
– Vi gör inte det här för att tjäna pengar. Vi gör det här för att sporten ska växa. Sedan handlar det om att skapa hajp och intresse inför NHL-säsongen, som börjar snart, har NHL:s ligakommissionär Gary Bettman nyligen sagt, apropå de låga publiksiffrorna."

Roughly translated:
NHL are not worried about the terrible audience
- We are not doing this to make money, we are doing it to grow the sport. It's also about creating hype and intress for NHL, Gary Bettman says.

Didn't know Bettman spoke Swedish. And so well!

 

[Jonimaus]

Didn't know Bettman spoke Swedish. And so well!

Yeah, we clearly do not translate interviews in Sweden.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Yeah, we clearly do not translate interviews in Sweden.

I was only joking

 

[BruinLVGA]

1.Switzerland had a long hockey tradition, and was always due to become a solid program.
It's a cold weather country, they are too small to have strong nat'l teams in sports with traditionally bigger participation, they have the money for infrastructures...
Their rise started before Nagano.
They made the semis at the 1998 IHWC, and while the IHWC are a good notch below the Olympics in terms of quality, getting to the semis is still a feat few nations outside of a core group can achieve.

On the other hand, larger countries with more diverse geography and a more competitive sports landscape, like Germany which has consistently been touted as the next breakthrough nation, has never made it.
At one point, Germany was seen as a nation with better prospects than Finland.
But there is just too much competition from more accessible sports in such large countries, whereas Finland is a small, winter sport country with limited success in cheaper sports.

The NHL in the Olympics has little to do with that. It is a simple combination of climate, economics and demographics.

Yes, we sure have a strong hockey tradition. Hockey is #2 here. But before the 1998 WC (I was there at that tournament, by the way), results were rather pathetic. Things changed that year - do you know who was the coach? Ralph Krueger. Sounds familiar? - and thank God they kept on going that road, which culminated in the silver at the 2013 WC.

Anyways... If Switzerland, where soccer is also undisputed #1, can have a program that now produces NHL level players, so could Germany. The climate is the same, the infrastructure is more or less the same, Germany has the bigger edge on population but has a bigger obstacle because their soccer is top 1-3 in the world and therefore youngsters dream of becoming the next soccer superstar, not hockey.
Potential is there though, and if I was in the NHL shoes, I would definitely not forget about Europe. As I said, including Russia, we're talking 700 million people. A completely untapped market.

 

[BruinLVGA]

"Men publiksiffrorna är inget som oroar NHL (som arrangerar turneringen).
– Vi gör inte det här för att tjäna pengar. Vi gör det här för att sporten ska växa. Sedan handlar det om att skapa hajp och intresse inför NHL-säsongen, som börjar snart, har NHL:s ligakommissionär Gary Bettman nyligen sagt, apropå de låga publiksiffrorna."

Roughly translated:
NHL are not worried about the terrible audience
- We are not doing this to make money, we are doing it to grow the sport. It's also about creating hype and intress for NHL, Gary Bettman says.

If they are doing it to grow the sport they are doing an insanely bad job. I don't think this tournament is helping grow the sport anywhere, if anything it has the opposit effect.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/hockey/landslag/worldcup/article23592463.ab Article from Swedens biggest newspaper, if anyone is interested in google translating it for themselves.

Thank God Bettman is not named Pinocchio, or his nose would have already gone beyond the border of the solar system.

 

[xxxx]

Thank God Bettman is not named Pinocchio, or his nose would have already gone beyond the border of the solar system.

Just because something generates money, or someone gets paid, doesn't mean they're doing it just for money. Do doctors save people's lives just because they get paid for it? Of course the NHL isn't hospital, but my point is that these things (it generates money so we're doing it only for that) are not by default, as some want to always make it seem.

Whether you believe Bettman or not is your personal opinion. Whether the NHL ACTUALLY does the tournament for growing the game or not, you simply have no idea if it's true or not, that's something only they know. From a objective perspective, an event like this has the potential to grow the game, without a doubt.

 

[Jonimaus]

Just because something generates money, or someone gets paid, doesn't mean they're doing it just for money. Do doctors save people's lives just because they get paid for it? Of course the NHL isn't hospital, but my point is that these things (it generates money so we're doing it only for that) are not by default, as some want to always make it seem.

Whether you believe Bettman or not is your personal opinion. Whether the NHL ACTUALLY does the tournament for growing the game or not, you simply have no idea if it's true or not, that's something only they know. From a objective perspective, an event like this has the potential to grow the game, without a doubt.

If they are interested in growing the game they should continue with the Olympics.
An event like this has absolutely no chance in growing the game. If you want to grow the game you have to create interest in untapped markets. Only Canadians are interested in this tournament, do we really need to grow hockey there?

 

[Urbanskog]

Just because something generates money, or someone gets paid, doesn't mean they're doing it just for money. Do doctors save people's lives just because they get paid for it? Of course the NHL isn't hospital, but my point is that these things (it generates money so we're doing it only for that) are not by default, as some want to always make it seem.

Whether you believe Bettman or not is your personal opinion. Whether the NHL ACTUALLY does the tournament for growing the game or not, you simply have no idea if it's true or not, that's something only they know. From a objective perspective, an event like this has the potential to grow the game, without a doubt.

You really think that growing the game is their priority?

 

[varsaku]

Just because something generates money, or someone gets paid, doesn't mean they're doing it just for money. Do doctors save people's lives just because they get paid for it? Of course the NHL isn't hospital, but my point is that these things (it generates money so we're doing it only for that) are not by default, as some want to always make it seem.

Whether you believe Bettman or not is your personal opinion. Whether the NHL ACTUALLY does the tournament for growing the game or not, you simply have no idea if it's true or not, that's something only they know. From a objective perspective, an event like this has the potential to grow the game, without a doubt.

The money is not going to get any better in 2020. Networks are going to see these ratings and stay away from negotiating for the broadcast rights or will low ball the money offered.

 

[Macman]

9 out of 13 games so far had the attendance of 18,926+ people.
3 games had about 12,000; one (Czechs-Europe at 3pm) had 8 and a half.


For comparision, at the 2014 olympics, the two venues' capacity for men's ice hockey tournament was 7,000 and 12,000. The QF game between the USA and the Czech republic had the attendance of 4,606 people. Not one from the 4 medal-games (2 semifinals + one bronze-medal game and one gold-medal game) was sold out, and we are talking about arena that had capacity of 12,000, not 20. And the attendance for two of those 4 games was just above 9,000. At the olympics. One semfinal and one bronze-medal game. At the olympics.

Here, again, 9 out of 13 games had attendace of roughly 19,000+ and 3 of the remaining 4 games had about 12,000.

That's just putting things into perspective a little bit. IF such a tournament was held somewhere in Europe, the attendance would be nowhere that good, no matter if with gimmicky teams or not.

For further comparision, the average attendance at the worlds this year in Russia was 6,522. But, hey, what are facts when some are bent on slagging this tournament. I don't know what the attendance is for this game, but I'm pretty sure it's not only half full like that Swedish newspaper claims. They're quoting StubHub prices. Who cares how much legalized scalpers are losing? Good riddance. The fact is they paid full price for their tickets.