• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Wing Across The Pond

NHL will not participate in 2018 Winter Olympics

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It blows my mind that people are still blaming the league on this.  It's like the knee jerk distaste for Bettman clouds any other consideration when something bad happens in hockey.  The owner, and Bettman, WANTED their players to go to the Olympics and lobbied to do so when pro players entered the games in the 90's.  They seem perfectly willing to agree to player participation when it doesn't cost them anything, and would be absolutely ready to agree if they actually made a little money off the deal.  But clearly the IOC isn't content with that arrangement.  They don't want to pay expenses and they don't want to share profit.  Few owners are going to agree if it actually COSTS them money.  That's silly.  Blame the IOC.  For once, this isn't Bettman's fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2017 at 0:51 PM, kipwinger said:

It blows my mind that people are still blaming the league on this.  It's like the knee jerk distaste for Bettman clouds any other consideration when something bad happens in hockey.  The owner, and Bettman, WANTED their players to go to the Olympics and lobbied to do so when pro players entered the games in the 90's.  They seem perfectly willing to agree to player participation when it doesn't cost them anything, and would be absolutely ready to agree if they actually made a little money off the deal.  But clearly the IOC isn't content with that arrangement.  They don't want to pay expenses and they don't want to share profit.  Few owners are going to agree if it actually COSTS them money.  That's silly.  Blame the IOC.  For once, this isn't Bettman's fault.

People are blaming the league because it was the league that made the announcement that the league wasn't going to allow NHL players to participate. I'd bet if it the league had said, "We have no problem with NHL players participating, but we aren't going to pay the expenses", few people would have any problem with it.

From the IOC's perspective, they likely figure they'll make just as much money whether they have NHL players or not, so why should they pay? 

The logical choice for who should cover the costs is the individual national federations, since they're the ones who actually benefit. 

But ti seems to be less about costs than the league not wanting "their" players to play unless the league gets paid for it. While I can to some degree understand their position from a business perspective, but in a more broad sense, they're taking away from the fans and denying players a possible once in a lifetime opportunity. All because a bunch of rich guys want to make a few more dollars.

Not saying you shouldn't also hold the IOC partially responsible, nor saying they aren't also greedy bastards. But the NHL is not blameless here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Buppy said:

People are blaming the league because it was the league that made the announcement that the league wasn't going to allow NHL players to participate. I'd bet if it the league had said, "We have no problem with NHL players participating, but we aren't going to pay the expenses", few people would have any problem with it.

From the IOC's perspective, they likely figure they'll make just as much money whether they have NHL players or not, so why should they pay? 

The logical choice for who should cover the costs is the individual national federations, since they're the ones who actually benefit. 

But ti seems to be less about costs than the league not wanting "their" players to play unless the league gets paid for it. While I can to some degree understand their position from a business perspective, but in a more broad sense, they're taking away from the fans and denying players a possible once in a lifetime opportunity. All because a bunch of rich guys want to make a few more dollars.

Not saying you shouldn't also hold the IOC partially responsible, nor saying they aren't also greedy bastards. But the NHL is not blameless here.

I 100% agree with you.  I just recognize (as you did above) that for league owners hockey IS a business, and they've invested lots of money into players and want to get something out of it.  It may be in the NHL's interest to see the game grow, but it's not their BUSINESS to see the game grow.  Their business is putting asses in seats at the Joe, or the Verizon center, or whatever.  And allowing players to play, and assuming the risks and costs associated with that, isn't something they're likely to do without some incentive.  Currently there really isn't one, or at least a tangible one, so it's something they're unwilling to do.  Which is disappointing, but I think reasonable.  I mean, a big part of the reason Alex Ovechkin is a bigger star (and draw) than Ilya Kovalchuk is precisely because the NHL has invested a ton of money into making him a star both through investment in his development but also through intense (and expensive) marketing. 

As far as the bolded, I agree that this is their thinking, but I'm not sure it's going to pay off.  The hockey tourney is the premier event at the winter games.  Lots of people buy tickets to see the best tourney on earth.  Lots of people buy Team USA sweaters, but even more would buy Team USA Austen Matthews sweaters.  And advertisers and networks are (IMO) much more likely to buy in at a higher price if it's a best on best tourney and not a rehash of the World Juniors.  We'll see if their gamble pays off.  It obviously has ramifications on how they'll approach negotiations with the NBA, PGA, pro tennis, etc. for the Summer games. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

I 100% agree with you.  I just recognize (as you did above) that for league owners hockey IS a business, and they've invested lots of money into players and want to get something out of it.  It may be in the NHL's interest to see the game grow, but it's not their BUSINESS to see the game grow.  Their business is putting asses in seats at the Joe, or the Verizon center, or whatever.  And allowing players to play, and assuming the risks and costs associated with that, isn't something they're likely to do without some incentive.  Currently there really isn't one, or at least a tangible one, so it's something they're unwilling to do.  Which is disappointing, but I think reasonable.  I mean, a big part of the reason Alex Ovechkin is a bigger star (and draw) than Ilya Kovalchuk is precisely because the NHL has invested a ton of money into making him a star both through investment in his development but also through intense (and expensive) marketing. ...

But I don't think anyone (fans at least) is asking or expecting the league to assume the costs.

What I find unreasonable is that the whole thing should not be the NHL's business at all. Players are not just assets. I understand not wanting to interrupt the season, but it's not like they're losing any games. The league is already shut down for ~4 months every year. Shouldn't be a big deal to squeeze in a couple weeks every four years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Buppy said:

But I don't think anyone (fans at least) is asking or expecting the league to assume the costs.

What I find unreasonable is that the whole thing should not be the NHL's business at all. Players are not just assets. I understand not wanting to interrupt the season, but it's not like they're losing any games. The league is already shut down for ~4 months every year. Shouldn't be a big deal to squeeze in a couple weeks every four years. 

I completely agree with the part about players not being just "assets" and I've said so elsewhere.  I've actually argued (mostly on twitter) that this would be a really good opportunity for the NHLPA to conduct a work action because A) They need to show the owners they they can hurt them too (for the next CBA negotiations), and B) because pretty much everyone would be sympathetic to the players on this one.  I'm of the opinion that in any industry both workers AND owners have the right, and responsibility, to protect their own interests.  Employment is an implicit agreement between two equal parties.  Which is why I HATE it when people say the owners "own" a players contract. 

As far as costs, I was mostly talking about the potential costs of injuries to star players as well as the opportunity cost of having your building sitting empty for 3 weeks. At the very least owners have to spend the assets to find things to fill their arenas during that time, and given that it's only a year out, that may be difficult and/or expensive.  I do realize that it doesn't "cost" them anything in terms of spending money to send players to the Olympics.  But aside from intangible things like "growing the game" or "increasing their profile" there really isn't any incentive for them to do it.  The potential that a Crosby getting hurt probably out weigh the benefit of him playing considering there really is no benefit from the owners perspective.  Like I said, they're just protecting their (sizeable) investment, which i think it totally reasonable.  Just like I think it would be totally reasonable for the players to negotiate an "olympic clause" in the next CBA if it really means that much to them. 

And none of this is to say that I won't be totally bummed about them not playing.  I will.  I absolutely love the Olympic hockey tourney. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Buppy said:

But I don't think anyone (fans at least) is asking or expecting the league to assume the costs.

What I find unreasonable is that the whole thing should not be the NHL's business at all. Players are not just assets. I understand not wanting to interrupt the season, but it's not like they're losing any games. The league is already shut down for ~4 months every year. Shouldn't be a big deal to squeeze in a couple weeks every four years. 

It's the injury risk, not just shutting down for a couple weeks.  What happens to the Pens if Crosby and Malkin are playing against each other and they collide and both blow out their knees?  Considering the fact that the NHL has negligible benefit from letting them go, it's kind of stupid to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

It's the injury risk, not just shutting down for a couple weeks.  What happens to the Pens if Crosby and Malkin are playing against each other and they collide and both blow out their knees?  Considering the fact that the NHL has negligible benefit from letting them go, it's kind of stupid to do so.

Same thing that happens if Crosby and Malkin go boating together, have an accident, and drown. Hockey players have lives independent of the NHL. I do not believe the NHL or an individual team should have the authority to govern all risk out of a player's life. And it would be hilariously hypocritical for the league to try to argue that playing hockey is so dangerous that players should only be allowed to do it if the league is making money off it.

Nor should the league or its teams assume they should benefit from any activity involving players. I believe that even in the realm of big business there is room for some humanity. Furthermore, if this ends up contributing to another labor dispute you could argue that the league is hurting itself by not allowing players to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Player contracts outline activities they can and cannot do. Risking injury during the season is a no no.

And yet NHL players have participated in the last 5 games.

Maybe contracts say something about the Olympics or hockey in general, maybe they don't. That's not really the point. I'm not making a legal case here. I'm saying the league should not bar players from the Olympics, not that they can not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Why shouldn't they. What do the owners get from letting their multimillion dollar employees risk serious injury?

Because personal liberty is something we should consider to be an unalienable human right. Some things should transcend the almighty dollar. Call me an idealist.

Why should the league/owners expect to "get" something from every activity their employees are involved in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Buppy said:

Because personal liberty is something we should consider to be an unalienable human right. Some things should transcend the almighty dollar. Call me an idealist.

Why should the league/owners expect to "get" something from every activity their employees are involved in? 

I think it's problematic that the league can even "let" them play in the first place.  Shows just how uneven the relationship is.  Like I said above, it would be a good time for the players to conduct a work action.  Show the owners that they don't "let" players do anything unless it's addressed in the CBA or a personal contract.  I'm a union guy, but they need to show their teeth once in a while. 

Like I said, I get the that owners invest a lot in these players.  I also get that the players aren't merely assets.  Clearly both sides are going to have to figure out an Olympic option in the next CBA. 

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is addressed. Players aren't allowed to do things that jeopardize their health or play of any other team while under contract during the season. That includes playing for national teams. It has nothing to do with "personal liberty," it's something they agree to when they sign a contract that pays even minimum salary guys as much in one year as most people make in 15 or 20 years.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

It is addressed. Players aren't allowed to do things that jeopardize their health or play of any other team while under contract during the season. That includes playing for national teams. It has nothing to do with "personal liberty," it's something they agree to when they sign a contract that pays even minimum salary guys as much in one year as most people make in 15 or 20 years.

Again,not the point. No one is arguing that they can restrict a players actions to some degree. I'm saying they should not. (And I believe Kip is saying that the PA should negotiate to reserve certain rights, to take that ability away from the league.) I'm saying they shouldn't because, in general, I don't believe an employer should have the right to govern an employees actions outside of normal working hours. Sure, they may be some exceptions, where some actions could be particularly harmful to an employer. But I don't believe playing in the Olympics falls in that territory. 

Your argument seems to be that they should just because then can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kipwinger said:

I think it's problematic that the league can even "let" them play in the first place.  Shows just how uneven the relationship is.

Well, the league's basically run by the team owners -- and they don't call 'em *owners* for nothing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again,not the point. No one is arguing that they can restrict a players actions to some degree. I'm saying they should not. (And I believe Kip is saying that the PA should negotiate to reserve certain rights, to take that ability away from the league.) I'm saying they shouldn't because, in general, I don't believe an employer should have the right to govern an employees actions outside of normal working hours. Sure, they may be some exceptions, where some actions could be particularly harmful to an employer. But I don't believe playing in the Olympics falls in that territory. 
Your argument seems to be that they should just because then can.


If it would cause players to miss games, it's not restricting what they do during their regular working hours.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only two weeks. Big deal. It's not a true competition between the world's best players if the world's best players aren't involved. You can't really tell a guy that he can't go play for his country if he wants to. It would make Olympic hockey boring again like when the Soviet Union was usually the sure winner every four years because Canada and the US had to send college and amateur players who for the most part couldn't compete  with their "amateur" players. I understand the owners lose money and there's a risk of injury like Hasek in 2006 who was sidelined for the rest of the Senators season after being hurt in the Olympics and may well have cost them a Cup, but those are rare.

Maybe the NHL should just keep the schedule going with the players left with their teams while the players chosen by their countries play in the Olympics if the owners feel so strongly about not having a break. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple business.

NHL doesn't want to make Olympic tournament the best ice hockey competition on the world. It is not controlled by them.

NHL wants to make World Cup the best ice hockey competition on the world. That's fully controlled by them.

I don't like this approach, but I can understand it.

 

Btw, did NHL disallow players participation, or did they just decided not to make a break during the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now