Author Topic: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)  (Read 783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Moranis

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15364
  • Tommy Points: 730
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2017, 11:16:50 AM »

Offline Jiri Welsch

  • Jae Crowder
  • Posts: 366
  • Tommy Points: 38
  • @ApocryphalTale
Good for them
Twitter: @ApocryphalTale

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2017, 11:56:35 AM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
  • Tommy Points: 256
  • Truth Juice
Didn't old school professional players used to have to work in between seasons? I remember reading about Tommy doing insurance during the summer. And he was one of the bigger names in the league.

Once the sport picks up more they can pay them accordingly. The WNBA has come a long way from it's early days and I know women's hockey is not as popular as women's basketball.

It's too bad they have to sit out championship games to make a point. That's a great time to increase brand image.
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2017, 12:09:38 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8302
  • Tommy Points: 1831
Didn't old school professional players used to have to work in between seasons? I remember reading about Tommy doing insurance during the summer. And he was one of the bigger names in the league.

Once the sport picks up more they can pay them accordingly. The WNBA has come a long way from it's early days and I know women's hockey is not as popular as women's basketball.

It's too bad they have to sit out championship games to make a point. That's a great time to increase brand image.

The thing is, there really isn't much of an off-season these days, and they're being paid less than you'd make working minimum wage for 40 hours a week.

Quote
In the past, USA Hockey has provided the players with $1,000 per month during the six-month Olympic residency period. According to the players, USA Hockey pays virtually nothing during the remainder of the four-year period, despite its expectation that in each of the non-Olympic years, the players train full-time and compete throughout the year.

Also, bear in mind that USA Hockey pulls in over $40 million per year, and they're paying their female athletes less than about 0.25% of that total revenue in Olympic Years, and apparently even less every other year.

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2017, 12:17:58 PM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1998
  • Tommy Points: 256
  • Truth Juice
Didn't old school professional players used to have to work in between seasons? I remember reading about Tommy doing insurance during the summer. And he was one of the bigger names in the league.

Once the sport picks up more they can pay them accordingly. The WNBA has come a long way from it's early days and I know women's hockey is not as popular as women's basketball.

It's too bad they have to sit out championship games to make a point. That's a great time to increase brand image.

The thing is, there really isn't much of an off-season these days, and they're being paid less than you'd make working minimum wage for 40 hours a week.

Quote
In the past, USA Hockey has provided the players with $1,000 per month during the six-month Olympic residency period. According to the players, USA Hockey pays virtually nothing during the remainder of the four-year period, despite its expectation that in each of the non-Olympic years, the players train full-time and compete throughout the year.

Also, bear in mind that USA Hockey pulls in over $40 million per year, and they're paying their female athletes less than about 0.25% of that total revenue in Olympic Years, and apparently even less every other year.

Just the salary part, MLS players used to get similar sub minimum wage salaries when it started out. As I said, if and when the sport gains some real traction (like the WNBA and MLS) the salaries will follow.

I also thought it was different for Olympic athletes vs. professionals? Are these women competing in the women's version of the NHL and getting paid so little or is this just a national/Olympic thing? Because I feel like the are very different.
The Nets will finish with the worst record and the Celtics will end up with the 4th pick.

- Me (sometime in January)

--------------------------------------------------------

Guess I was wrong (May 23rd)

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2017, 12:33:32 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8302
  • Tommy Points: 1831
Didn't old school professional players used to have to work in between seasons? I remember reading about Tommy doing insurance during the summer. And he was one of the bigger names in the league.

Once the sport picks up more they can pay them accordingly. The WNBA has come a long way from it's early days and I know women's hockey is not as popular as women's basketball.

It's too bad they have to sit out championship games to make a point. That's a great time to increase brand image.

The thing is, there really isn't much of an off-season these days, and they're being paid less than you'd make working minimum wage for 40 hours a week.

Quote
In the past, USA Hockey has provided the players with $1,000 per month during the six-month Olympic residency period. According to the players, USA Hockey pays virtually nothing during the remainder of the four-year period, despite its expectation that in each of the non-Olympic years, the players train full-time and compete throughout the year.

Also, bear in mind that USA Hockey pulls in over $40 million per year, and they're paying their female athletes less than about 0.25% of that total revenue in Olympic Years, and apparently even less every other year.

Just the salary part, MLS players used to get similar sub minimum wage salaries when it started out. As I said, if and when the sport gains some real traction (like the WNBA and MLS) the salaries will follow.

I also thought it was different for Olympic athletes vs. professionals? Are these women competing in the women's version of the NHL and getting paid so little or is this just a national/Olympic thing? Because I feel like the are very different.

This is just the Olympic and other international competition thing.  But participating in it precludes the opportunity to do much else, because a 6-month commitment every four years, as well as shorter but frequent commitments in other years, gets in the way of taking jobs or forming teams with other time commitments.

USA Hockey literally pays every single senior staff member more individually than it collectively does the entire women's team.  It could triple the amount it pays the women, and pay them in non-Olympic years, and not come close to running any kind of deficit.

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2017, 12:35:11 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5932
  • Tommy Points: 750
Didn't old school professional players used to have to work in between seasons? I remember reading about Tommy doing insurance during the summer. And he was one of the bigger names in the league.

Once the sport picks up more they can pay them accordingly. The WNBA has come a long way from it's early days and I know women's hockey is not as popular as women's basketball.

It's too bad they have to sit out championship games to make a point. That's a great time to increase brand image.

The thing is, the WNBA really hasn't come a long way. This from a NYTimes article last year:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/28/sports/basketball/after-two-decades-wnba-still-struggling-for-relevance.html

Quote
Half of the W.N.B.A.’s 12 teams lose money, and they benefit from revenue generated by the N.B.A.’s national television and sponsorship deals. This season, the $25 million the W.N.B.A. is getting from its primary broadcaster, ESPN, is a tiny fraction of the N.B.A.’s average $930 million payment from ESPN and TNT, which will rise to about $2.6 billion next season.

In a rare and candid moment last year, James L. Dolan, who owns the W.N.B.A.’s Liberty and the N.B.A.’s Knicks, told HBO’s “Real Sports” that he came close to handing the franchise back to the league in 2015.

“It hasn’t made money,” he said. “Its prospects of making money, at that time and even today, are still slim.”

The WNBA has obviously benefited by partnering with the NBA and using the same name (reasons why a league such as the ABL, started at the same time as the WNBA, failed).

It's not really about how hard these women work or how skilled they are, if people aren't interested enough in their sport, then it won't make money and they won't be able to make a living playing that sport. Unfortunately for them it is a business.

Now I don't know the details of how much money USA Women's Hockey (specifically) brings in (or how much Olympic athletes actually get paid, in general), but it seems that for women's hockey to succeed, they may need the help of the NHL, not USA Hockey.

Re: US Women's Hockey Team to sit out the Worlds (which are in the U.S.)
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2017, 08:38:40 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15364
  • Tommy Points: 730
Agreement reached
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.