US vs Canada - Women's Hockey

[mksioux]

In my opinion, the biggest problem for hockey in this country is cost.  Hockey is getting so expensive that it is simply not an option for the majority of Americans to even consider. If we want our country to do well in hockey, we have to drive down the cost and increase numbers by making the sport available and accessible to the middle class and lower middle class.  We should not be doing things that make the sport even more expensive than it already is.

So if USA Hockey is forced to pay the women's national team as employees, who pays for it?  I assume if there were corporate sponsorship opportunities, they already would have happened.  USA Hockey could cut development programs, but I suspect that would prove too controversial.  So that leaves an increase in USA Hockey dues as the most likely source of that revenue.  So the average family with two or three kids will have to pay even more so their kids can simply play hockey.  So when I read all these stories about "equality" I just kind of shake my head.   We're talking about grown women who are demanding youth hockey parents and coaches pay them so they can continue to play international hockey. 

[mksioux]

43 minutes ago, AJS said:

Whatever the men currently receive as far as compensation / perks, match that. I know USA hockey has said that they are not an employer of hockey players, but they need to get this message out. We are offering everything the Men's team gets + extra pay for the 6 months prior to the Olympics. So, in fact the US Women's team is getting more than the Men as far as compensation goes. Keep telling everyone this until people finally get that what they are currently asking for is absurd.

I agree with this.  USA Hockey bungled the PR on this and lost the narrative.  They should have recognized that they had to give the women's team the exact same perks the men's team gets.  My understanding is that those perks relate to things like the equipment budget and travel.  Those are a very minor part of the women's demands, and would not have prevented this boycott.  However, it would have positioned USA Hockey to be able to say forcefully that it treats the men's and women's national teams EXACTLY the same.  If they had been able to repeat that message over and over, they might have had a chance.  But it's too late.  In the era of social media where everyone acts on emotions and facts are a casualty, USA Hockey will have no choice but to cave and and the rest of us will have to pay for it.  

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

16 hours ago, UNDColorado said:

His crusade is getting old. 

Good God, man, clear your inboxes!  Outlook = 4503.  Gmail = 22,566???

[farce poobah]

I can't support all the items on the USA Women's National Team list.

But its clear USA Hockey did some incredibly dumb things that got it to this point.  Take that list of "incidental" things:   fly business class, a companion can accompany you on trips, etc.   They gave those to the men but not the women. So on the way back from Sochi, the men flew first class, but the women were in coach.  

Also glad to hear of late breaking news of an agreement.   This too is best for long term progress of hockey in the USA.

   

[Dave Berger]

From SI.com: USA Hockey strikes deal with women's national team

Discuss.

Dave

[Air Force One]

I'm glad my kids are done with USA Hockey so I don't have to pay any part of this settlement.

[cberkas]

So the women ask to be paid $237,000 each on an Olympic year and $149,000 for non-Olympic year. They better not ask high schoolers or college players to play for them until they are done with college.

Lets see if USA Hockey gave them that much.

[stoneySIOUX]

5 minutes ago, cberkas said:

So the women ask to be paid $237,000 each on an Olympic year and $149,000 for non-Olympic year. They better not ask high schoolers or college players to play for them until they are done with college.

Lets see if USA Hockey gave them that much.

Each player??? Ummmm... didn't they want a "living wage"? I'm absolutely, 100% on board with them getting paid better, but that's an enormous number.

Where did you see this, cberkas?

[scpa0305]

7 minutes ago, cberkas said:

So the women ask to be paid $237,000 each on an Olympic year and $149,000 for non-Olympic year. They better not ask high schoolers or college players to play for them until they are done with college.

Lets see if USA Hockey gave them that much.

So what do the men get?  The viewership for the women's national team is no good.....where is all that money coming from (USA hockey is a non profit).  Also, those wages seem really high.

[cberkas]

6 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Each player??? Ummmm... didn't they want a "living wage"? I'm absolutely, 100% on board with them getting paid better, but that's an enormous number.

Where did you see this, cberkas?

They said they denied asking for that much.

There is nothing I can find on the deal. I bet USA Hockey made a deal so the NHL player would play at the World Championships.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2017/03/28/us-womens-hockey-team-usa-hockey/99729180/

Quote

The players said in a statement earlier this month they were seeking a livable wage, although they strongly disputed the numbers put out by USA Hockey that they had asked for $237,000 each in an Olympic year and $149,000 in a non-Olympic year

 

[cberkas]

4 minutes ago, scpa0305 said:

So what do the men get?  The viewership for the women's national team is no good.....where is all that money coming from (USA hockey is a non profit).  Also, those wages seem really high.

Men get nothing.

The maturity leave that the women were asking for made it sound like they are permeant members of the National team.

[Yote 53]

1 hour ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Each player??? Ummmm... didn't they want a "living wage"? I'm absolutely, 100% on board with them getting paid better, but that's an enormous number.

Where did you see this, cberkas?

Really?  I am not on board for them getting paid anything.  You see, the men don't get paid anything either.  Being chosen for the National Team is an honor.  You go to serve voluntarily.  Now, any benefits that come with being on the team, hotel, travel arrangements, training stipend, etc. should be exactly equal to what the men's team receives, beyond that, like the salary requested that was part of their demands, no way.

USA Hockey is not a professional hockey organization.  It does not employ hockey players for its teams.  It does not, or should not, keep a standing National Team roster.  If it decides to do this for the WH program then they have to do it for the men, and pay the men equally, even though they already make millions paying professional hockey, though not all do, some toil in the AHL and other professional leagues and are not living large either.

I am sorry there is not enough money in women's professional hockey for these ladies to make a full-time living playing hockey.  There just isn't a market to support a league.  But that is not USA Hockey's issue, it is far beyond their scope or responsibility.  The ladies on the team will have to do what every other Olympic athlete from an obscure sport does to support themselves while training for a sport, either that or decide to move on and start the next stage of their life post-hockey.  All former players have had to do that at one point or another, when they meet the end of the road.  I'd love to make money playing hockey but nobody is going to show up on Tuesday nights to watch my beer league games.  I'm keeping my day job.

[stoneySIOUX]

18 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Really?  I am not on board for them getting paid anything.  You see, the men don't get paid anything either.  Being chosen for the National Team is an honor.  You go to serve voluntarily.  Now, any benefits that come with being on the team, hotel, travel arrangements, training stipend, etc. should be exactly equal to what the men's team receives, beyond that, like the salary requested that was part of their demands, no way.

USA Hockey is not a professional hockey organization.  It does not employ hockey players for its teams.  It does not, or should not, keep a standing National Team roster.  If it decides to do this for the WH program then they have to do it for the men, and pay the men equally, even though they already make millions paying professional hockey, though not all do, some toil in the AHL and other professional leagues and are not living large either.

I am sorry there is not enough money in women's professional hockey for these ladies to make a full-time living playing hockey.  There just isn't a market to support a league.  But that is not USA Hockey's issue, it is far beyond their scope or responsibility.  The ladies on the team will have to do what every other Olympic athlete from an obscure sport does to support themselves while training for a sport, either that or decide to move on and start the next stage of their life post-hockey.  All former players have had to do that at one point or another, when they meet the end of the road.  I'd love to make money playing hockey but nobody is going to show up on Tuesday nights to watch my beer league games.  I'm keeping my day job.

Lol buddy, I wasn't aware that the men's teams get nothing. So, pump the breaks, will ya? 

All I said was the $200K was ridiculous. That was a lot of breath wasted on your part, IMO.

[UNDColorado]

4 hours ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

Good God, man, clear your inboxes!  Outlook = 4503.  Gmail = 22,566???

Haha I am an electronic hoarder. However saving emails has saved my butt before!

[mksioux]

Just now, stoneySIOUX said:

Lol buddy, I wasn't aware that the men's teams get nothing. So, pump the breaks, will ya? 

All I said was the $200K was ridiculous. That was a lot of breath wasted on your part, IMO.

It was an informed, intelligent post.  He was not responding your statement that $200k was a ridiculous number.  He was responding to your statement "I'm absolutely 100% on board with them getting paid better." 

[stoneySIOUX]

13 minutes ago, mksioux said:

It was an informed, intelligent post.  He was not responding your statement that $200k was a ridiculous number.  He was responding to your statement "I'm absolutely 100% on board with them getting paid better." 

Never said it wasn't informed nor unintelligent. Seemed very logical, but came off as attacking me that I made such a comment. And again, I had no idea that men's teams weren't paid. So, all in all, I agree with him. Both should be paid equally if anything at all.

It felt like he was coming at me for my post when my intention of the post was that I thought asking for $200k was outrageous. Not a big deal.

[mksioux]

10 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Never said it wasn't informed nor unintelligent. Seemed very logical, but came off as attacking me that I made such a comment. And again, I had no idea that men's teams weren't paid. So, all in all, I agree with him. Both should be paid equally if anything at all.

It felt like he was coming at me for my post when my intention of the post was that I thought asking for $200k was outrageous. Not a big deal.

The bold part is what is very frustrating about this.  It's not your fault that you didn't know that because virtually every news story about this issue in the mainstream media omits this very important fact.  

[cberkas]

Someone did call out Brad on how he is only telling the women's side.

[Yote 53]

22 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

Never said it wasn't informed nor unintelligent. Seemed very logical, but came off as attacking me that I made such a comment. And again, I had no idea that men's teams weren't paid. So, all in all, I agree with him. Both should be paid equally if anything at all.

It felt like he was coming at me for my post when my intention of the post was that I thought asking for $200k was outrageous. Not a big deal.

Wasn't an attack towards you, sorry if it came off that way.

This story has really ruffled my feathers for some reason.  Could USA Hockey have handled it better?  Sure.  They were dealing with a hot button issue in this social justice warrior world we live in.  Everybody looking for something to get offended by, facts thrown out the window under the guise of "fairness".  I'm sure USAH had an "oh sh**" moment when they realized the storm this created.  Why is this bothering me?  Because it is so wrong.  It is being reported and presented in such a one-sided manner.  USAH is being portrayed as this old boys club that just sits back and counted their millions while these girls toil in poverty.  It's just not true.  USAH is non-profit and does the best with the resources it has.  It is not a professional sports franchise.  The boys NTDP, funded by a direct grant from the NHL.  USAH could not use that money in other areas even if they wanted to as that money was specifically granted for its intended purpose.  Yet that is being thrown at USAH as an example that they care more about boys hockey than girls.

Has anybody looked at the recruiting materials from USAH for youth hockey lately?  Huge emphasis on girls hockey and its growth.  Affiliates have special committees that deal solely with the growth of the girls game.  What USAH has been portrayed as is wrong and what the women's team is doing perpetuating this image is wrong.

I have a daughter who I hope plays hockey someday.  I realize that the farthest she could probably hope to go in the sport, if she is talented, is to get some schooling paid for.  Beyond that, well, such is life.  If she wants to rake in the big bucks as a professional maybe she should go to the pageant circuit and work towards becoming an international supermodel.  Gisele makes far more money than Tom Brady, after all.

[stoneySIOUX]

4 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Wasn't an attack towards you, sorry if it came off that way.

This story has really ruffled my feathers for some reason.  Could USA Hockey have handled it better?  Sure.  They were dealing with a hot button issue in this social justice warrior world we live in.  Everybody looking for something to get offended by, facts thrown out the window under the guise of "fairness".  I'm sure USAH had an "oh sh**" moment when they realized the storm this created.  Why is this bothering me?  Because it is so wrong.  It is being reported and presented in such a one-sided manner.  USAH is being portrayed as this old boys club that just sits back and counted their millions while these girls toil in poverty.  It's just not true.  USAH is non-profit and does the best with the resources it has.  It is not a professional sports franchise.  The boys NTDP, funded by a direct grant from the NHL.  USAH could not use that money in other areas even if they wanted to as that money was specifically granted for its intended purpose.  Yet that is being thrown at USAH as an example that they care more about boys hockey than girls.

Has anybody looked at the recruiting materials from USAH for youth hockey lately?  Huge emphasis on girls hockey and its growth.  Affiliates have special committees that deal solely with the growth of the girls game.  What USAH has been portrayed as is wrong and what the women's team is doing perpetuating this image is wrong.

I have a daughter who I hope plays hockey someday.  I realize that the farthest she could probably hope to go in the sport, if she is talented, is to get some schooling paid for.  Beyond that, well, such is life.  If she wants to rake in the big bucks as a professional maybe she should go to the pageant circuit and work towards becoming an international supermodel.  Gisele makes far more money than Tom Brady, after all.

No biggy. 

[cberkas]

7 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Wasn't an attack towards you, sorry if it came off that way.

This story has really ruffled my feathers for some reason.  Could USA Hockey have handled it better?  Sure.  They were dealing with a hot button issue in this social justice warrior world we live in.  Everybody looking for something to get offended by, facts thrown out the window under the guise of "fairness".  I'm sure USAH had an "oh sh**" moment when they realized the storm this created.  Why is this bothering me?  Because it is so wrong.  It is being reported and presented in such a one-sided manner.  USAH is being portrayed as this old boys club that just sits back and counted their millions while these girls toil in poverty.  It's just not true.  USAH is non-profit and does the best with the resources it has.  It is not a professional sports franchise.  The boys NTDP, funded by a direct grant from the NHL.  USAH could not use that money in other areas even if they wanted to as that money was specifically granted for its intended purpose.  Yet that is being thrown at USAH as an example that they care more about boys hockey than girls.

Has anybody looked at the recruiting materials from USAH for youth hockey lately?  Huge emphasis on girls hockey and its growth.  Affiliates have special committees that deal solely with the growth of the girls game.  What USAH has been portrayed as is wrong and what the women's team is doing perpetuating this image is wrong.

I have a daughter who I hope plays hockey someday.  I realize that the farthest she could probably hope to go in the sport, if she is talented, is to get some schooling paid for.  Beyond that, well, such is life.  If she wants to rake in the big bucks as a professional maybe she should go to the pageant circuit and work towards becoming an international supermodel.  Gisele makes far more money than Tom Brady, after all.

Where would a NTDP women's/girls team play or who would they play?

They  could combine the NWHL with the CWHL and add the Minnesota Whitecaps to have a 10 team league. then find a way for the NHL to do what the NBA does for the WNBA.

 

[cberkas]

This whole thing is starting to be the reaction to players getting pay cuts in the NWHL. Since the NWHL doesn't want to pay them, they figured it would be easier to get USA Hockey to pay them.

[Yote 53]

4 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Where would a NTDP women's/girls team play or who would they play?

They  could combine the NWHL with the CWHL and add the Minnesota Whitecaps to have a 10 team league. then find a way for the NHL to do what the NBA does for the WNBA.

 

No idea who a WNTDP would even play.  I mean there is no USHL for women for the U18s or U17s to play in, they go right out of high school or AAA to college.

I don't think combining those leagues is the answer.  If there was a market and money to be made somebody would have started a pro women's hockey league already.  The NBA subsidizes the WNBA.  I remember a while back the WNBA players complaining about their lack of pay, the lack of "fairness" in pay.  Don't know how it turned out but I think somebody reminded them their league makes no money and that the NBA actually props it up, why I don't know.  I'm sure it's a long term play by the NBA to create more women NBA fans.  Not sure if the NHL wants to or is in position to do the same.  They have their own problems, like franchises in Arizona and Carolina and Florida to worry about, amongst other things.

[gfhockey]

I'll bite and say what most guys are thinking

 

id go to a nwhl game if they played in bikinis 

 

kinda like sand volleyball

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Never change gfhockey... never change