NHL’S POSITION ON OLYMPICS HEAVY-HANDED AND WRONG
Individual players should be able to participate, says Dick Pound
Canada has, perhaps, a unique perspective on ice hockey. If we did not invent the game, we certainly contributed to its development into a global sport.
We have, to mix sporting metaphors, punched well above our weight for decades.
We fielded two of the Original Six teams in the National Hockey League and have continued to be important in the North American context of the NHL. Our men’s team has won the last two Olympic tournaments and our women have won the last four. We have hosted two editions of the Olympic Winter Games and are in the process of due diligence regarding a bid for a third occasion in 2026.
Canada led the fight against the “shamateurism” that developed in hockey during the 1960s and ’70s, where European players who were clearly professional athletes participated in the Games, but NHL players were not allowed to do so. Even though hockey was our national sport (and close to being our national religion), we refused to participate in the discriminatory Olympic hockey tournaments.
Eventually, after many years in the international hockey wilderness, the rules were changed and NHL players were welcomed to the Olympic Games.
The Olympic tournaments finally became events in which the best players in the world participated. The game continued to grow internationally and the fan base became global.
Which brings us to the Olympic Winter Games next February in Pyeongchang, South Korea. I appreciate that the objective and purpose of the NHL, as a business, is to make money for franchise owners and players.
The “negotiations” regarding participation of NHL players in 2018 have focused solely on monetary issues.
The outcome has been that the NHL will not permit its players to participate. Korea appears to be a market currently of little, if any, interest to the NHL. For the next Games in 2022, however, there appears to be massive interest in the huge Chinese market, and one would not have to be a prophet to predict the NHL will do whatever it has to do to ensure its players will be in Beijing.
I “get” the economic argument. But I also believe that there are at least two larger interests at play.
The first is a responsibility for growing and promoting an exciting game, which is important for the sport, its players and spectators throughout the world.
It is not sufficient for the NHL to be content with plucking the low-hanging financial fruit, but to fail to invest in the future of the game. The second issue is the NHL’s decision to actively prohibit individual players who want to represent their countries at the Olympic Games.
Aside from being heavyhanded and an abuse of its economic power, it is disrespectful to the rights and dreams of those players.
While I can see that it might be legitimate to try to discourage such participation, I believe it is (among other things) bad business to forbid or prevent such individual choices. Again, one does not have to be much of a prophet to predict that the NHL Players’ Association will exact a significant price for the NHL’s intransigence regarding the players when the next Collective Bargaining Agreement discussions begin. That, too, is bad business for the NHL — all of its own making.
If the NHL, citing economic losses, does not want to close the league for two weeks (once every four years), so be it. But it needs to be able to accommodate those players who want to represent their countries and act for the good of the game, its players and fans. And for the NHL itself.
Canada, and Canadian teams, should lead the way.
Looking at the oilsands, companies supporting the 100-megatonne annual limit would find rolling it back unhelpful — history shows it doesn’t help to be seen as a laggard on the environment. Sara Hastings-Simon, Pembina Institute