About a month ago, fellow BR hockey fan Jennifer Conway approached me with a fantastic idea. As she is an American and I am Canadian, she thought we ought to take a look at our respective nations’ common enemy: NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman. From the time he first took the reins of the NHL in 1993 he has caused controversy by his handling of this hallowed league and his apparent indifference to the traditions on which it was founded. Unfortunately I was unavoidably called away from the real world for the past month—as my lack of Bleacher Reporting may attest—and luckily Senior Writer Bryan Thiel took over the Canadian angle, and has done a much more thorough job than I ever could have. Graciously, they left an opening for my research in the form of a responsive article, which is essentially the gut reaction I have personally experienced and seen in many other fans.
You love hockey. You must at least be interested, if you have come this far. It doesn't matter where you are from or how close your relationship is with the game; everyone connects with sport in their own way.
In North America, the NHL dominates the professional hockey scene, and for the past fifteen years it has been directed by its Commissioner—a businessman/lawyer from Queens by the name of Gary Bettman. Before joining the NHL—and after leaving a lucrative law firm—he had been executive management in the NBA, instituting their famous salary-cap system, and has spent years getting under the skin of sports fans, media, and participants.
On either side of the longest [previously] undefended border on Earth, Bettman had made an indelible impression to go with a healthy dose of opposition. His antics and methods often seem to Canucks as either extremely anti-Canadian or radically pro-American.
In reality, his tenure has caused issues, positive and negative, across the North American hockey world. Though both nationalities find fault with Gary Bettman's leadership, Americans and Canadians see the situation through slightly different tints of glass.
The one major difference in the effect Bettman and his cronies have on our nations' relationship with the game (whew, that was long) is that at the least, in Canada the game itself is in no real danger of losing popularity. It is the NHL, and any ramifications their ideas may have on other levels of hockey, that is gaining more and more opposition.
In the States, there is a very real problem in finding room for hockey in the already flooded sports market. Bettman, rather than marketing to Canada and the numerous US areas that are strong in terms of hockey base, has made special effort to add—and hold on life-support—a number of teams in regions unable and/or unwilling to support them...at least not in the lucrative manner the League would like.
To many hockey fans, this in itself is an irritant that leads to insult.
Support bases are strong North of the border, and to be honest, almost over-saturated. The Canadian Press has recently reported that 31 percent of the League’s $1.1 billion worth of ticket sales* come via the six Canadian teams. Of the remaining twenty-four US teams, eleven either barely broke even and/or recorded losses last year. This, in markets Bettman insists are growing and self-sufficient.
Additionally, though I could not find the stats on merchandising, sales on jerseys, shirts, hats, etc. would presumably be comparably high up North. In fact, since there is far more merchandise than available arena seats, hockey-retail sale numbers are likely to be exponentially higher in Canada than in the US, where there is greater competition from the NBA, MLB, NFL, NASCAR, PGA, college sports, etc.
With so much of the revenue and support coming from North of the border, it is tiring when Southern states and franchises whose existence seems unnaturally forced are pandered to while passionate fans—in respected hockey venues on BOTH sides of the border—seem to get the shaft.
There is almost a level of paranoia that Canadian fans feel in this, the reign of Bettman. When folks who have spent their entire lives living the game as a part of the Canadian cultural experience see a weasely little demon—who doesn't seem to understand hockey let alone like it!—perched over their beloved icon with beady dollar-sign eyes, it begins to feel like a personal vendetta.
The image of his relationship with hockey is a cariacture of itself.
Since his arrival in 1993, the game has been changed. Interested parties have watched strange rules added and important ones removed or in threat of being removed. Some changes have been good, but if you had only started watching a few years ago you wouldn't understand what has been lost... especially to the die-hard follower.
Furthermore, eventually rule changes made at the NHL level threaten to trickle down into other levels of hockey, altering the game itself, possibly forever.
As has been stated in the other articles, the emphasis on scoring has reached a ridiculous level. Now, that being said, there have been on-and-off periods of high and low scoring throughout NHL history, and it can be fun to watch on occasion. However, to change the rules with the poorly veiled intention of increasing scoring, ostensibly allowing stars and superstars to entertain the masses and therefore ingratiate hockey into the hearts and minds of the score-hungry American public is somewhat pathetic. Especially if it alienates the original audience.
One of the “reasons“ Bettman wanted more goals is that apparently, the American public can‘t stand any low-scoring, slow-action sport. Has anyone heard of baseball? (And hey, I love baseball!) Even football can be low/tight scoring. Besides, judging by the numerous American fans who have always loved hockey, it seems they are not so uncomfortable with how the game was played. At least in hockey, as Jen Conway said, there is something to watch nearly every second of the game.
If folks don’t like the game then they don’t like it. It doesn’t seem fair to alter the fabric of the game to draw in those who don’t like it enough.
Imagine the antagonism in America if the Japanese, who have found an adopted sport in baseball, suddenly decided to buy up MLB shares and change the entire US baseball experience to fit their ideal?
There is nothing wrong with the Japanese, their way of life, their enjoyment of the game and their involvement within the sport, but American fans would be more than a little indignant to see an outside influence in charge of the future of such a storied League if fans were forced to bear the brunt of unwanted changes. No more hot dogs at Fenway. Only sushi, because after all, there are far more Japanese people—and their Yen—in the world than Americans.
Besides, it isn’t as though most Americans want a different game. Far from it, if you listen to fans from around the continent, and on sites like this one. However, the Bettman Administration has done all it can to dumb down the sport and tailor it to what it thinks will sell. The infamous FoxTrax—the glowing puck that slid along the screen as a “visual aid”—gave Canadians the impression that if Americans could see a tiny white golf ball against clouds easily enough, they were pretty thick if they needed help to see black on white.
American fans thought it was silly as well, and were aware of how it made them look to the rest of the hockey world.
People like Bettman unfairly give the impression that the average American association with hockey is either a financial arrangement or one of non-comprehension.
After the lockout, many fans North of 49 began to lose some interest in the National Hockey League. There was hockey in various forms to tide people over (though the loss of the NHL was huge nonetheless, especially on Saturday nights!) and other Leagues increased their followings.
Regular Joes have paid ever-increasing prices to see the NHL teams they grew up with, and thus feel a sense of ownership towards these organisations. Now, many would rather take the entire family to see a Calgary Hitmen game for $60 in great seats than pay $750 for two mid-range seats at a Flames game. Merchandising here is huge, and again, many feel they are paying the ticket so that Bettman and others can steal the game away.
The "New NHL" games didn't have the same spark, and despite many elaborate efforts, some excitement was lost. For one, people had been upset by the loss of NHL hockey, into which they had paid so much energy and money. They were happy to have it return, but many were jaded by that time.
And when it did come back, although some things had been improved—including the overused term "parity"—the game had been given an image-altering make-over. Some wrinkles had been erased, but too many scars were showing in the aftermath of this hack-job.
Diminished physicality was a hot button subject, as it removed entire aspects from a team and skater's repertoire. Fine, players had to adapt, and viewers got some good hockey out of it... to a point.
Why are fans and players being asked to give up a lifetime's worth of experiences, memories and ideas so that an already uninterested American audience—the one that wasn't going to watch anyway—can potentially benefit?
And then the NHL Commission expects loyalty from the people who pay the way, and try to blame the players for being too greedy, and the fans, for lacking an understanding of the situation? They obviously don’t give their public supporters much intellectual credit.
The 2005 lockout made Canadian fans feel manipulated, lied to, and used. It was the second lockout since Bettman took over—1994-95 saw only half a season played—and the excuses used the first time around were recycled and rehashed, and the blame again redirected. There was so much spin from the outset that most of us knew there was no real chance of avoiding a full-season lockout, and when Bettman, with eyes filled with crocodile-tears made the announcement that 2004-05 was not to be, many lost faith.
From a US viewpoint, fans are being driven away—and equally not being lured in—due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is the difficulty in accessing games on television. Canadians don’t have as much of a problem in that department, as each of the Canadian teams will at least have their entire schedule broadcast on local/online radio, and have a pay-per-view channel on top of weekly CBC broadcasts. In most cities, the NHL franchise is the only major sports team; then there are the CFL teams and lower level sports teams (Toronto, of course, has the Jays, Raptors, and Toronto FC, but nothing compares to the Leafs in T.O.)
Games can even be accessed by folks in the Far Northern areas, in middle of nowhere Arctic-tundra-land. Nearly all sports marketing in Canada is hockey related. Although there are large followings for all sports, and Canadians follow teams from other countries regularly, hockey remains a reliable constant.
Hockey Night in Canada's (CBC) Staurday night broadcasts are a staple, but even this famed institution faces schedule-based issues. Indeed, various highly successful hockey programs are often asked to take a backseat to poorly staged US network/satellite broadcasts, and viewers must watch lesser-quality commentation.
The CBC's typically unbalanced Western schedule, however, is largely their own prerogative—there is always a Leafs game, even if it's in Florida, but the Flames/Wild divisional game wouldn't be seen—but the schedule hasn't helped... even though broadcasts are kept in mind during preparation.
At any rate, Canadians have relatively easy access to the game, whereas years of up-and-down media contracts down South have made the sport's availability inconsistent and frustrating.
From what I have heard from US fans, this is on of their biggest day-to-day complaints regarding the NHL. Without easy access to their team's games, people lose interest.
But again, hard-core hockey fans know that when poor efforts are made in the US to showcase the game properly, the sport becomes a joke to the uninitiated masses of America. Very poor/misplaced PR and marketing on the part of the Bettman era has created an unnecessary issue, for all their hot air and bluster about saving money and getting contracts for the greater benefit.
The bottom line is that Canadians are proprietary when it comes to hockey, and not just the NHL, which is the most common relationship the average fan has with hockey outside of playing. And for the past I don't know how many years, the man in charge of this long-standing, historical, and proud league has shown a lack of genuine respect for the traditions that have made it so great.
Perhaps more accurately, the showings he has made have seemed to lacked sincerity. In any case, the image Bettman has made for himself is not very favourable, no matter what good he may have done.
We have watched the way hockey is played on the ice morph into a totally new version of the game, where defenders can no longer take charge in the slot or stand up for their team mates without creating the Bettman-favourite special teams opportunity—and all the inflated scoring that goes with it.
Further on the topic of goalphilia: NHL records have been altered for all time with the advent of the shootout, which can be fun to watch but is also unnecessary in many ways. So many three-point games wreaking havoc with the standings, all for an addition that is a blatant attempt to make the game seem more exciting. IT IS EXCITING!
We watch the merchandising and marketing of the NHL overwhelm the game itself. Do we want the stupidity of other Major League sports? Do we want new pressures to lead to steroids, endemic unsportsmanlike behaviour, and players driven no longer by heart and love for the game, but by fame, money and endorsement contracts?
If this and the convincing arguments made in Bryan and Jen’s articles aren’t enough, take a look for yourself the next time Bettman is spot-lit at a game or event. You can even look at the photo at the top of this article.
For a man who has spent more than two decades in professional sport, he has yet to show even the pretence of sincere enjoyment in the efforts and excitement in front of him. This is not to say he must be a hard-core hockey-nut in order to run the business side. If these multitude of controversies did not mar his record, perhaps fans would not mind his disinterest. However, after all the meddling he has done to the great game of hockey, it seems impertinent that he should be unaffected by his actions while those who truly care are left lamenting over the remains of a beloved friend.
Too much? Perhaps, but when cold, emotionless eyes survey the game one loves, it sends a shiver up the spine.
The reason Gary Bettman has not one single serious advocate in this country is because he does not seem to have the people's best interests at heart, and because he does not have hockey's best interests at heart.
Fans will always be engaged and disenchanted by performances from their favourite teams and players, but they move on to others and continue on loving the game. When—and I have frequently seen this first hand since the lockout—people lose faith in the NHL and/or the game itself, it is a whole other story.
The effect Bettman has had can be stated simply in respect to our two countries: He has alienated the foundation as he has ineffectually chased a long-shot. If things don't change soon, he and the NHL may find themselves turning in all directions without a friendly face to be seen.
The old base will have turned their backs, and the American dream he has been so obsessed with will be out of his reach, completely uninterested in him or his little league. As I said before, the Canadian population will never lose hockey...
...whether or not they continue to whole-heartedly support the NHL remains to be seen.
Already, the dissent is disturbing, but so is the rabidity of the fans. There are so many supporters that it would take a long time to chip the Canadian base away. Even so, fans worry that the slightest falter in a Canadian team's performance could spell the end, while a floundering US team would be saved time and again. Paranoia.
I know Bettman thinks he sees the big dangling carrot of a massive US market, but I think he needs a reality check. Even if he ever got the impossible, would it do much good if he lost the most important cash-paying audience? They have failed to identify the right demographics. Just because the citizens of a new franchise city have money, doesn't mean they will randomly spend it on the NHL.
I hope for everyone's sake that a spreading love of hockey rises from this unnaturally forced distribution. The powers that be must realise that some of these ventures have succeeded, yet some have failed miserably. Losses must be cut eventually. Until then, Canadian and US fans will suffer this experiment.
Thankfully, to Canadians—and those in the Northern US—hockey isn't just a business. It's a way of life. Even for those who have made it their professional business, it is always, first and foremost, about the game.
To read Jennifer Conway's American take on the current NHL Commissioner, read Bettman Across the Border.
For a look at the Canadian perspective, see Bryan Thiel's article Takin' a T/O With BT: Gary Bettman North Of The Border.
PS - When it really comes down to it, it is the fans and participants that make hockey great. As long as eveyone takes responsibility for their own connection with the game, it will remain "ours"... and stay out of the hands of business.
* Ticket sale totals do not include pre-season games; such games are well attended in well-rooted venues, but lack somewhat in struggling markets. Though it is likely these numbers are inflated due to a healthy Canadian dollar, the totals still account for an overwhelming share of the market. Especially when one considers the eleven struggling US organisations. The "list" of team revenues was originally published in the Toronto Star.
comments (13) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
I am going to add links to the other Bettman articles. For now, check out the profiles (and impressive portfolios) of Jennifer Conway and Bryan Thiel.
Buddy-boy Selig, for all his flaws, loves the game of baseball. If Bettman loved hockey and made some mistakes, he would be afforded more leeway. Same goes for the reverse: if he hated hockey, but kept the status quo reasonably balanced, he would not be the target of websites dedicated to his derision and eventual termination. (I'm not telling anyone to visit any of them... unless they want to)There are two that I know of: firebettman.com and garybettmansucks.com. I am not making that up, and it's not a good sign for anyone involved in hockey.
As for my Japanese analogy (sushi at Fenway), I know that there has/had been some neurosis about "outsider" interests in MLB teams and the types of fundamental changes that were feared. Of course, these did not happen.
A better understanding of the hockey demographic/local demographics may have helped the NHL place teams in better US markets. As it is, so many of the expansion teams (and if you believe rumour, there may be more teams/moves in the US) have been placed in sports markets saturated beyond the bursting point. When college basketball will draw more fans than an NHL game, not to mention sell more merchandise, what hope do they have of coming from nowhere? Plant a team of Russians in Atlanta and call them Thrashers, for instance, and people seem disinterested. I wonder why?
There could very well be an upside, and there already has been in many areas: what some like to call "grass-roots" hockey can, has, and will continue to appear and grow in previously unimaginable locales. Once there is a more even interest in hockey throughout the community/area, then higher, more expensive levels like the NHL will find regular popularity. Until then, however, there are misplaced teams and players, not to mention fans who either don't care, or feel an injustice has been done to their team. At this point, every NHL team has been in it's location long enough for it to be determined if they have actually succeeded. Those 11 US teams that failed last year to earn a profit... at what cost is that to existing and potential US and Canadian franchises? At what cost to the reputation of the game?
4 months ago
I guess Bettman should take a look at what is under his own eyes: he just has to look at most of the front rows of the Joe Louis Arena for game 1 of the Stanley Cup finals.
Personally, I am a montreal fan, and never I would see any seat empty at the bell center, even after losing streaks or stuffs like that. night after night, it is always full.
so I guess that is how it was hard for me to imagine how come at the stanley cup finals, there are empty seats whatsoever. the Pistons were playing the same night, it was all about fun and full out there.
I have seen an article talking about Tampa Bay wanting to sell Hockey to the fans out there.
u're absolutely right, he needs a reality check
4 months ago
Detroit is more of a Canadian city than most people would expect. The true hockey fans that would shell out serious money for those lower-bowl seats have been really disheartened by Gary Bettman's visions for the game. We vote for the commissioner the only way we can.... With our wallets. And who can blame us? Who wants half of the joke of a schedule the Wings play every season? I don't think anyone looks forward to the 8 games a year we play against exciting hockey-rich cities such as Columbus and Nashville? The two cities that DO have a hockey clue (Chicago and St. Louis) have teams in constant rebuilding mode... This just doesn't build excitement.
The low seats now are all purchased by businesses (who are losing money like crazy right now and don't want to have high-profile people showing up in those seats) and scalpers (who are having a hard time finding suckers to sell to).
You'll find the old-guard fans tucked away in hole-in-the-wall sports bars still loving the Wings, but hating the league and Bettman just as much as our friends North (or east, in my case) of border.
from 4 months ago
I absolutely agree. It isn't just Canadian teams and fans who have suffered. Older/stronger markets are losing interest all around the League because THEIR interests are not being prioritised. It isn't even that I begrudge these "new" markets their teams, and I feel badly that smaller markets have found enough fans who would miss it, but not nearly enough to support it. It isn't fair to anyone that these teams are forced into existance only to flounder and cause dissent among fans.
The Wings are certainly a solid team which has found itself in the same predicament as Canadian teams. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but I'd assume that after the Habs and Leafs, the Wings have the most wide-spread, diverse support. Like I said before, even though the businessmen don't need to be hockey icons themselves, it helps to have or utilise some sort of hockey understanding when making decisions.
Like you say, fans will still want hockey, want their teams, but hate the system they are stuck in. It's nothing the fans should have to worry about... these issues have distracted us needlessly from the game!
4 months ago
The possibility of having original six teams play each other in the final has become tough, granted geographically there is little that can be done. Having Toronto play Montreal last died with wayne gretzkys spear to gilmour.
4 months ago
Great article by the wayand I reall thnk ther trio of you jen and brian have really kept in the sprit of what I think the BR is all about. Kudos again.
4 months ago
OH DEAR! I can't get through this in one sitting. One for it's length and two for it's content. What venom: "weasely little demon"? Where does that come from? No knowledge of hockey and doesn't like it???? Do you have any idea who you're talking about? Do you know the man played hockey in his younger day? Obviously not because you have spent volumes attacking him on a person level. Nothing stays the same. NOTHING. The game itself has evolved before Bettman and it will continue after his tenure is done. You want to throw numbers around? Throw the 4.3 share NBC did last night which is up 79% over last year. I'll try to come back and finish this later. Perhaps the entire article isn't just a personal rant. Perhaps there are valid points in it, however the presentation is not my taste.
from 4 months ago
Sorry that you took this so personally. This is my first "rant" article and is meant to represent the gut reaction of the average hockey viewer, especially those who have watched the game for 50 years, or at least for the entirety of their lifetimes. When Gary Bettman shows his face to the fans on television, it shows no interest; this is speaking as someone who HAS been paying attention since the beginning of his tenure.
The image he projects most widely does not elicit empathy or respect from MOST fans, though obviously not all. I understand you have your own special relationship with your "Uncle Gary", and fair enough; you will perhaps have a better personal understanding of who he is day-to-day. However, the relationship HE has forged with most of the hockey-fan community, especially the "Canadian/hard-core US hockey" fan has been one of distrust.
I am not [necessarily] saying that Gary Bettman the person is [necessarily] a "weasly-eyed little demon", but that is certainly the image (or at least one of the images) he has built for himself with most fans of the NHL/hockey. And as I also said in the article, I agree there have been some good changes over his tenure, however... (see arguments in the three Bettman articles, plus the innumerable Bettman-bash sites and serious debate arenas). Whether or not he ever played hockey at some distant point is irrelevent (but interesting, good to know). The way in which he has approached the game in his professional capacity has been unnecessarily cold. If he does have some secret love of the game, he sure hides it well.
His treasure-trove of hockey knowlege effectively hidden too. He has made numerous hockey faux pas over the past fifteen years, and this is yet another reason he has put a metallic taste in fan's mouths. Those who spend months, years, watching their teams and players play the game, hit the highs (and lows), and put so much energy into hockey would like to see the occasional sincere smile from the commish when the Cup is awarded, the big goal scored, whatever. We aren't asking him to jump up and down or anything, but in nearly every instance he either looks insincere, like it's just business, or that he'd rather be somewhere else.
from 4 months ago
> You want to throw numbers around? Throw the 4.3 share NBC did last night which is up 79% over last year.
If I'm not mistaken, though... Gary Bettman was the Commissioner responsible for last years flop, too, though.
"Our ratings don't suck as bad as they did last year" only makes sense when you start showing some consistent year-on-year improvement. Last years ratings were the worst ever for any major league sport. And can you honestly tell me what Bettman did to improve those ratings? Was it the "excitement" built up by an unchanged regular season schedule that didn't even have Detroit and Pittsburgh playing each other? Was it a continued benefit of the ongoing "valued partnership" with Versus that ensured half the season wouldn't even be viewable in my local area except at bars that carry Satellite?
He did nothing different this season over last season. The ratings improved because two hockey-rich cities have good teams that made the finals. The ratings would have happened, regardless of who was commissioner. I just don't get it.
I've been a hockey fan a lot of years, and I just don't have any respect for the guy. Maybe I'm just a relic, (hey, I was a Red Wings fan back before they drafted Yzerman) but it always seemed like the NHL worked as a league before he took over. Sure, there weren't as many teams.... But the teams that were there were happy teams in core hockey markets. Each team played a strong and interesting schedule. Players didn't have multi-million dollar salaries. Sure, there were fights. But there wasn't all the stick infractions, dangerous knee hits, slewfoots, etc. Players had respect for each other and the game. And the games were covered well by knowledgeable broadcasters on LOCAL BROADCAST TV in the cities of the teams.
You could make the argument that every one of these things lost are at least partially a result of the mis-management of the hockey-as-a-business enterprise of Gary Bettman. Of course, I'm sure that isn't fair, either. I actually like some of the on-ice rule changes he's made. But, ultimately, I think he's lost the respect of many fans and players. He has alienated many core hockey markets. There are too many teams in the league. And too many teams in cities that don't understand or care about hockey. The strain of expansion has taken its toll. I think it is time for him to step aside, and I hope and believe that the ownership of some of the more storied hockey franchises are starting to realize this.
As for me, I still watch the NHL on CBC (which is the closest thing to a local broadcast left), but I'd prefer to spend my hard-earned money watching local junior and college teams, nowadays. Less business, more sport.
4 months ago
Hey M:
You sure know how to get discussions going! Obviously some people only read part of an article before sounding off! good stuff!
S
4 months ago
great article and good debate in the comments section..glad to see you back with such venom, towards a personal enemy of mine.
4 months ago
great take..i especially enjoyed you're article of the three...where have you been..i lost touch with the report after the flames went out.
3 months ago
I hate this guy! he ruined the nhl for everybody, especially Americans. Theres nowhere to watch the games, and they are never advertized
write a new comment