Should the IOC compensate NHL owners in exchange for them allowing their players to participate?
Bob Nicholson tends to think so. I'd tend to agree.
Thoughts? Should they or shouldn't they?
- 10 years agoFavorite Answer
I don't often disagree with Bob, but I do in this case.
If teams were losing TV revenue or home dates as a result, then I would have to re-consider (you're right - like that would ever happen at my age) - but they aren't.
Fact - teams have 41 home dates in an Olymnpic year...just like a non Olympic year
Fact - teams aren't losing TV revenue because they are still televising 41 games (unless you're Phoenix, then it's only 37)
Fact - the compression of the rest of the schedule makes the season only 7 days longer, meaning that people are still in hockey mode during those 7 extra days (God they better be or why have the Stanley Cup playoffs during that time)
Fact - I know all!Source(s): LITY
- Anonymous10 years ago
I think that, that makes sense tho i can also see the arguement that the owner are already getting something out of letting their players play in the olympics.. i know it may not be so evident in areas where hockey is the main sport already but here in texas the amount of people that watch olympic hockey just b/c of the team america aspect of interenational play is way higher then the amount of people that will be watching the stars tonight. The owners get their players names out there as well as introduce the sport to people who never knew how interesting it was...
On the other hand i can understand owners not wanthing to risk their players getting hurt in a game that not only does mean jack in the NHL but possibly even to play against the team of their home country so i say that they have an agreement to split the amount of the salary that would have gone to player if they get hurt during international play.. that might even make for a more fare line up as it is when they refuse to put down "crosby insurance" or heaven forbid pay the "kovi preimum"