US Women's hockey team considering boycott as World Championship looms

[chadsexington]

Sorry NHL scoring race...this is probably the most fascinating story in hockey right now IMO:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/usa-womens-hockey-wage-dispute-boycott-1.4031959

 

[kamper23]

Does anyone know where you can find concrete numbers on this? Their demand etc?? I keep hearing them say they want equitable support, but no one from the players side as elaborated on this. The media seems to just keep running with the $$ side of the story, so what is the truth??

This whole thing could go sideways for the women's team just as easy I think??

 

[SLanding]

So if I am reading this correctly they want to be paid for not working for the 6 months they are not "employed" by Team USA. Is that correct? If so I am going to my boss tomorrow and ask to be paid when I am not working and see what he says.

 

[foley2k]

Does anyone know where you can find concrete numbers on this? Their demand etc?? I keep hearing them say they want equitable support, but no one from the players side as elaborated on this. The media seems to just keep running with the $$ side of the story, so what is the truth??

This whole thing could go sideways for the women's team just as easy I think??

Yup, this thing could flip, and they might not compete at the Olympics. I haven't seen any official numbers. If the money is there to pay them, I go for it. If it isn't, too bad.

So if I am reading this correctly they want to be paid for not working for the 6 months they are not "employed" by Team USA. Is that correct? If so I am going to my boss tomorrow and ask to be paid when I am not working and see what he says.

They want to be paid for the other 3.5 years outside of the Olympic period.

 

[MMarch]

This can be summed up in one five letter word - GREED. Unfortunately it has replaced another five letter word - PRIDE.

 

[lucky19]

This can be summed up in one five letter word - GREED. Unfortunately it has replaced another five letter word - PRIDE.

So they are greedy because they want to be justly compensated for the rest of the 3.5 year time span in which they play in the World Championship and Four Nations Cup annually?

 

[Bossy22]

This can be summed up in one five letter word - GREED. Unfortunately it has replaced another five letter word - PRIDE.

Without knowing the money it's hard to be fair but I have a feeling they are getting less than a full time worker at McDonalds. They deserve to be fairly compensated. Curious to see how this pans out.

 

[MMarch]

There are many things I dislike about USA Hockey, but to be fair, where would these players be without USA Hockey? There are plenty of players who have in the past, and would today, pay their own way to play for their country. That's where the greed versus pride comment comes from. Everything is about money, it's sad but it's the way this world works.

 

[canucksfreak19]

I don't have an opinion on this yet. Are the men paid outside of Olympic time? If the men aren't paid for World's I don't really see why the women would. However the opposite holds true as well.

Also what is the amount of revenue that the Women's team brings in? I have a hard time paying somebody more money than they bring in.

Lastly, depending on how much money the women are seeking this could lead to cuts in other areas of USA hockey, such as youth development programs etc.

There are many things to consider, and I feel it is too early to come out definitively on either side.

 

[X-Head]

I'm not sure how it works for hockey, but a buddy of mine used to be a judo competitor. He gave it up because they wanted him to "donate" any of his winnings back to Judo Canada. He was having to take time off work to compete and without the winnings, wouldn't have been able to pay his bills.

 

[weasel-king]

I just realized I know NOTHING about any of this--I played in a B/C league for one season maybe a decade ago and paid dues to USA Hockey. No idea what it was for. But are the ladies saying they want to be paid a salary from that same organization for the full 4 years between Olympics? I scanned through a few articles about this, and saw USA Hockey saying they do not employ the athletes for the full time span.

 

[pathshot]

I don't have an opinion on this yet. Are the men paid outside of Olympic time? If the men aren't paid for World's I don't really see why the women would. However the opposite holds true as well.

This really isn't a fair comparison, as the men are the ones earning millions in the NHL. This is about their survival, etc. Yes, there's the NWHL, where the minimum is $5000/season, with the top player at $13000.

The better comparison is against the Sport Canada's women's program, which pays them $1500/month year round, with Hockey Canada chipping in $2500/month for olympic prep.

For those claiming they're not working the other 3.5 years out of the 4 year Olympic window, they have to maintain conditioning, and they participate in the Worlds, as well as the 4 Nations Cup.

And for those claiming greed, again, $1000 a month for 6 months every 4 years means second jobs at a minimum. Even if they're playing in the NWHL, as many are, that's $26000-$58000 every 4 years ($6500-14500 annually).

Nothing about that is independently livable. I don't know how American women fair in terms of endorsements, etc., but there isn't a lot of money in this.

I found this to be a very good look into the life of an NWHL player, which, granted, isn't the same as USA Hockey - but it illustrates the challenges they endure.

Lastly, depending on how much money the women are seeking this could lead to cuts in other areas of USA hockey, such as youth development programs etc.

There are many things to consider, and I feel it is too early to come out definitively on either side.

And this is a concern too. Perhaps the real question is "How do we get more money into USA Hockey?"

That said, this would be a great opportunity for the NHL's Hockey is for Everyone program to put its money where its mouth is.

 

[weasel-king]

Isn't this the similar argument to, say, the WNBA? I don't really watch basketball, but I can tell you a couple dozen of the top stars in the NBA. Women? Maybe one, if she still even plays. I doubt I am any different from the majority of men in my demographic. WNBA is simply less popular than NBA, so the money follows. Isn't that capitalism? I imagine any of the major sports where there are both genders participating follows the same pattern (soccer and clearly hockey do).

 

[pathshot]

Isn't this the similar argument to, say, the WNBA? I don't really watch basketball, but I can tell you a couple dozen of the top stars in the NBA. Women? Maybe one, if she still even plays. I doubt I am any different from the majority of men in my demographic. WNBA is simply less popular than NBA, so the money follows. Isn't that capitalism? I imagine any of the major sports where there are both genders participating follows the same pattern (soccer and clearly hockey do).

It's similar, except the WNBA players make a much better salary - enough to live on. According to this article any losses incurred by the WNBA are picked up by the NBA. There's also some information on the average and minimum salaries. In sharp contrast, the NWHL just halved everyone's salary to keep the lights on.

In a year in which the NHL emphasizes "Hockey is for Everyone", the state of women's hockey in the USA contradicts that. When the professionals aren't being paid well enough to support themselves, it quickly becomes "Hockey is for the privileged".

 

[MMarch]

It's similar, except the WNBA players make a much better salary - enough to live on. According to this article any losses incurred by the WNBA are picked up by the NBA. There's also some information on the average and minimum salaries. In sharp contrast, the NWHL just halved everyone's salary to keep the lights on.

In a year in which the NHL emphasizes "Hockey is for Everyone", the state of women's hockey in the USA contradicts that. When the professionals aren't being paid well enough to support themselves, it quickly becomes "Hockey is for the privileged".

It's a business, plain and simple. If the money is not there to support the business, what are they supposed to do? The bank will only lend so much until they see the return is not there to support it. If the NWHL is not making money, do you expect some other company to pay the bills for them so they can continue to operate at a loss? This isn't a charity, it's a job, and if the players are unhappy with what they are being paid, don't play and find another job that pays you what you want. It's a game, not a necessity for survival. It's pretty simple, the support for the NWHL is not there for whatever reason, that doesn't mean someone else should bite the bullet and overpay while going bankrupt just to appease them.

And you're right, no matter what the NHL says, hockey is a sport for the privileged if you expect to make a career out of it. If you go in to it just for fun with no expectations, it is fun. But if you have a child whose played for an association governed by USA Hockey, it becomes very clear by Squirt/Atom age that if you have money, you get the best coaches, on and off ice training, and multiple sheets of practice and game ice each week. If you don't have money, you're lucky to get 1 shared ice practice with another team each week, and maybe 1 game a week. The NHL is selling you a fantasy, just like the NFL pays their commissioner $34 million a year but doesn't pay taxes because they are a "non-profit".

 

[pathshot]

It's a business, plain and simple. If the money is not there to support the business, what are they supposed to do? The bank will only lend so much until they see the return is not there to support it. If the NWHL is not making money, do you expect some other company to pay the bills for them so they can continue to operate at a loss? This isn't a charity, it's a job, and if the players are unhappy with what they are being paid, don't play and find another job that pays you what you want. It's a game, not a necessity for survival. It's pretty simple, the support for the NWHL is not there for whatever reason, that doesn't mean someone else should bite the bullet and overpay while going bankrupt just to appease them.

I don't disagree at all with your logic here. The business of entertainment is a tough one. However, the women here serve as role models, reasons why young girls would take up hockey. There's always something to be said about seeing someone who looks like you (gender, color, disability, etc.) achieving something you'd love to do. And given the NHL's various programs and celebrations, it's important to demonstrate they have a real investment in seeing these women succeed. The growth in hockey interest, and as well - the NHL - relies upon reaching demographics that they've failed before, and that includes girls and young women.

And you're right, no matter what the NHL says, hockey is a sport for the privileged if you expect to make a career out of it. If you go in to it just for fun with no expectations, it is fun. But if you have a child whose played for an association governed by USA Hockey, it becomes very clear by Squirt/Atom age that if you have money, you get the best coaches, on and off ice training, and multiple sheets of practice and game ice each week. If you don't have money, you're lucky to get 1 shared ice practice with another team each week, and maybe 1 game a week. The NHL is selling you a fantasy, just like the NFL pays their commissioner $34 million a year but doesn't pay taxes because they are a "non-profit".

Well, yes. Money is a powerful resource in ensuring the best results. ****, how much help could USA Hockey need if they're dumping money here. How can they not better support their women's program?

 

[MMarch]

I don't disagree at all with your logic here. The business of entertainment is a tough one. However, the women here serve as role models, reasons why young girls would take up hockey. There's always something to be said about seeing someone who looks like you (gender, color, disability, etc.) achieving something you'd love to do. And given the NHL's various programs and celebrations, it's important to demonstrate they have a real investment in seeing these women succeed. The growth in hockey interest, and as well - the NHL - relies upon reaching demographics that they've failed before, and that includes girls and young women.



Well, yes. Money is a powerful resource in ensuring the best results. ****, how much help could USA Hockey need if they're dumping money here. How can they not better support their women's program?

I agree, the NHL has the $ to promote the women's game much better, and should do so. Especially on the women's side since it doesn't affect NHL teams, they should maybe get involved in supporting the women's team for the Olympics, but I think we are already seeing the NHL try to back away from the Olympics due to pressure from the owners which really equates to $ and nationalism. The problem is, they can't do it just for Team USA, they would have to do it for every women's team to be fair and then you start crossing all kinds of lines and red tape with Hockey Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc. From a business standpoint I can see both sides for the NHL, while many will view it as a wonderful thing if they helped the womens game, you will always have those who are opposed as the NHL is unfortunately seen by many as a "mens only" league.

USA Hockey is a "good ol boys" club, always has been. They only do what is in their best interest, even if their view of "best interest" is extremely warped in too many ways to count. I held a position in our local hockey community and had to deal with USA Hockey on a regular basis. Honestly, I'd rather call and deal with the IRS then deal with USA Hockey again.

 

[pathshot]

I agree, the NHL has the $ to promote the women's game much better, and should do so. Especially on the women's side since it doesn't affect NHL teams, they should maybe get involved in supporting the women's team for the Olympics, but I think we are already seeing the NHL try to back away from the Olympics due to pressure from the owners which really equates to $ and nationalism. The problem is, they can't do it just for Team USA, they would have to do it for every women's team to be fair and then you start crossing all kinds of lines and red tape with Hockey Canada, Russia, Sweden, Finland, etc. From a business standpoint I can see both sides for the NHL, while many will view it as a wonderful thing if they helped the womens game, you will always have those who are opposed as the NHL is unfortunately seen by many as a "mens only" league.

USA Hockey is a "good ol boys" club, always has been. They only do what is in their best interest, even if their view of "best interest" is extremely warped in too many ways to count. I held a position in our local hockey community and had to deal with USA Hockey on a regular basis. Honestly, I'd rather call and deal with the IRS then deal with USA Hockey again.

Your insider view of USA Hockey gels with my understanding of their MO. Thank you for sharing that insight.

The Arizona Coyotes hired the first full-time female coach back in August, and while NHL.com reported on it, the NHL themselves didn't make much noise about it and relied on the media to disseminate. While I liked the move of doing it quietly, it's something else they could have pushed to increase women's interest in the sport - especially during last month's Hockey Is For Everyone celebration.

Damn it NHL and USA Hockey... grrr :|

 

[echoi69]

I've never heard of the 'Ted Stevens Olympic Amateur Sports Act' before, but it's been referenced by Team Captain, Meghan Duggan in a recent interview that simply requires USA Hockey to provide 'equitable support & encouragement'. They just want USA Hockey to comply with that law.

Christine Brennan from USA Today wrote a recent article and was on the radio earlier today sharing a new perspective on the topic of 'equitable financial support' comparing Women's Hockey to another Olympic ice sport like Women's Figure Skating.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport.../us-women-hockey-usa-hockey-boycott/99513768/

USA Figure skating brought in $18M in 2014. Their athletes get paid an annual salary of $50K to start, not including personal appearances and endorsement deals which can often increase earnings to closer to $100K. This is not pay for the star athletes; this is for all figure ice skaters.

A tiny sport like US Biathlon whose revenue was only $2.3M, managed to allocate $90K for their top performers via sponsorship agreement. So their elite athetes got $15K each in their first year; and $10K was given to another athlete in its second.

USA Hockey on the other hand brought in $42M in 2014. Women's hockey players got paid $1500 PER YEAR! Many of these players have to work F/T jobs outside of hockey since they don't have enough to fund their own training.

I simply don't get Team USA's complete lack of respect (that USA jersey snub is uncalled for) and lack of interest in supporting/promoting women's hockey. It makes no sense whatsoever especially when you're looking at a team that's a guaranteed medal. It also appears that Team USA is losing the war badly in the court of public opinion.

Here's hoping cooler heads can prevail.

 

[creasecollector]

Didn't know that ^

Thanks for the valuable information!