OLYMPICS DEBATE
Postmedia’s panel of NHL governors discusses pros and cons with Mike Zeisberger
Here in the land of massive mansions that sprawl out as far as the eye can see, the smell of money and opulence is everywhere.
It starts with the compound of president-elect Donald Trump, which the New York Times once compared to the Palace of Versailles. Musician Jimmy Buffett, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, shock jock Howard Stern and actress Rosie O’Donnell also have lavish residences in the area.
It seems about as far away from Pyeongchang, South Korea, as you can get.
Yet when the NHL’s board of governors congregates at Palm Beach’s swanky Breakers hotel Thursday and Friday for their annual December meetings, Pyeongchang will be atop the agenda as the league’s executive committee addresses whether NHLers will participate in the 2018 Olympics in South Korea. With the clock ticking on a final decision, optimism, while not yet abandoned, seems to be shrinking. The biggest roadblock appeared to be the International Olympic Committee’s sudden refusal to pick up costs like lodging and insurance as it had in the past. International Ice Hockey Federation president Rene Fasel appeared to come up with a solution by finding upwards of US$10 million to cover those issues only to have the league frown on the plan to have a chunk of that figure come from the hockey federations of the individual countries.
While the NHLPA has shown an eagerness for its members to return to the Games, the union last week understandably shot down the league’s offer of allowing the players to go if they agreed to extend the collective bargaining agreement for three more years.
What are the pros and cons of going versus staying? In Part 1 of our look at the issues facing the NHL in its 100th season, Postmedia News called on four NHL governors, who all have in one form or another been part of the Olympic experience, to share their insights.
Mike Zeisberger: This does not seem to be a black-and-white issue, even though NHLers have attended the past five Games. Yet from the players’ standpoint, doesn’t it seem pretty simple?
Jim Nill: I understand it’s an honour. I understand how much it means to represent your country at the Olympics. And so I understand where the players are coming from and where the fans are coming from. But I also understand from an NHL team’s point of view there is a business that we have to run.
Doug Armstrong: From a competitive standpoint, a sporting standpoint, the Olympics are the premier sporting event on the globe held every four years and obviously garner the attention of the whole world, so from an athlete’s perspective, an event like that has got to be something they dream about and something they’ll remember forever. Getting to the events, having been part of two of them, it’s special. It’s something I’ll remember forever. But … Zeisberger: But?
Armstrong: But on the other hand from a business perspective — and this is probably more for the United States than it is in Canada — shutting down at a time when football season is over and baseball has yet to start, you’re really in a sweet spot from the standpoint of having an audience all to yourself, maybe sharing it if there’s NBA and college basketball going on in some markets.
Nill: February is one of our biggest months and it’s hard to shut down for three weeks. First of all, you are shutting down your business — period. And there is the risk of injuries and everything that goes with it. So it’s a tough situation. And the other part of it is we’re not competing against the NFL at that time, we’re not competing against baseball at that time. It’s really just us and the NBA, so it’s really kind of our time. February, it’s hockey time in these types of markets.
John Davidson: In our market, we don’t yet have our season ticket base where we want it to be. We’re building it up. So you’re counting on many different revenue areas to build up your revenues. And to shut it down, you have to look at all areas and say: Is it worth it?
Zeisberger: What, then, is the grey area in the more established hockey markets like those in Canada when it comes to this NHLers-atthe-Olympics debate?
Kevin Lowe: I don’t want to use the term “grey,” but I do feel there needs to be co-operation. I believe the mandate that came out of the collective bargaining agreement of ’05 was to make it a more co-operative effort among owners and players. If you talk to the players, they love playing in it, but there also are downsides to playing in it — compressed schedule, potential for injuries, on and on. … And from the owners’ perspective, there are obviously numerous challenges.
Zeisberger: On the topic of injuries, is there fear among owners regarding a repeat of the John Tavares situation in Sochi, where he shredded his knee at the 2014 Games and was lost to the New York Islanders for the season?
Davidson: I never had the chance to play in the Olympics, but obviously I watched dating back to when I was younger. I was very fortunate to have had the experience of broadcasting five different Winter Olympics and they were all fascinating. I brought my family to each and every one of them, just had a great time. Now that I’m an executive and have a responsibility to my club, I have a responsibility to sit here and examine the what-ifs. What if there is a major injury like (the one that) happened to Tavares? What does that do to your organization? What does that do to your fans? They spend a lot of money on season’s tickets and now they don’t have the opportunity to watch the best player on your team. Those are the types of things you have to weigh and it has to be beneficial in so many areas. You know, you hear a lot: “It’s the Olympics. We have to send our best. We have to send our best.” I get all that. But it’s a much more complex issue than just that.
Armstrong: I also think that coming out of the Olympics that there is wear and tear on the athletes that is above and beyond. I really think that prior to the Olympics in Sochi, our team in St. Louis was at a high level and when we got back we had injuries to players who had went over there, which really had an adverse effect to our season. I think all teams had that, too — so I try to look at these things from all sides.
Davidson: When you go to a place like South Korea, well, I can remember during the Olympics in Japan, I flew back to New York and was messed up for a week. At two in the morning, I was walking around the house with my eyes wide open. Players can’t go over there then come back and jump on the ice and expect to be 100 per cent. It doesn’t work like that.
Zeisberger: Obviously this is an intriguing dilemma. Yes, NHLers have been there for the past five Games and the product has been arguably as good a display of hockey as we’ve seen — at least in my opinion. But between the IOC’s reluctance to cover costs and the time change that will see games played at off-hours in North America, there are cons. And let’s not forget the wild-card factor — there might not be an appetite to go to South Korea, but that’s not the case for the 2022 Games in China, which the NHL sees as a potentially huge revenue frontier for the sport.
Lowe: Look, I don’t know what the final outcome will be. But from my position now and where I am, I certainly can understand the owners’ concerns … But it’s also about growing the game as well. I would encourage players to talk to their owners about it because they’ll definitely have strong opinions about it. If it’s an important issue, you need to get the answer from the horse’s mouth.
Armstrong: The sport doesn’t go away because the sport is televised. Like I said, everyone is watching the Olympics. The hockey brand, the players’ brand, those things stay out there. You are watching the best players go up against the best players. But in a market sense, it is difficult to go dark at that time.
Davidson: Whatever happens, you have to listen (to) what the players are thinking. After all, they are taking part in revenue-sharing with the league. It’s glorious to represent your country on a big stage, but you’re also in a business that you are trying to make go. We have to sit down and go through everything, business-wise in particular, because why should anyone in our league spend millions of dollars to send our players there and have the IOC reap the benefits of it all? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.