Which Direction Should the NHL Go?

In consequence of the increasing evidence and reports that several NHL franchises are in trouble, it may mean that a major policy shift will have to be implemented.

Briefly (as recounted in a previous article, "Gary Bettman Continues To Defend American Losers"), the pro-American Bettman and the NHL board of governors decided that the NHL's overall goal was to make the NHL one of the big four leagues of American sports, which included a rich American television contract.

To achieve this goal they believed that by expanding into areas of the United States that had little previous contact with hockey they could make the sport a "national game," like it is in Canada.

Franchises were granted in the southern United States, along with shifts (Quebec, Winnipeg, Hartford) to non-traditional hockey areas.  The result has been 10 teams losing money, 17 experiencing attendance drops, and no American television contract.

As the noose starts to close tighter around the NHL, what options are open?


Keep plugging in the same direction


Strengths and Advantages:  It is the ideal utopia the NHL wants.

Weaknesses and Disadvantages:  It is more and more evident it never will happen.

This is what Bettman and the Board of Governors are hoping against hope for.  They hope that an American television contract will provide needed funds, new investors will bail out ailing franchises, a new arena for the New York Islanders, and winning teams will lure in fans in places like Long Island, Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix, Columbus, St. Louis, and Florida.

There are just too many good things that have to happen for their dream to come true.  More likely, things are going to get worse—even achieving one of their goals seems miraculous.

The owner of the New York Islanders can raise no funds to neither build a new arena nor get anywhere with municipal authorities to renovate the old one.

The NHL continues to get bad ratings in the U.S., which will not land a rich, American television contract.

No new, eager investors except the hated Jim Balsillie have appeared.  The current world financial situation is unlikely to produce them.

All the franchises listed above continue to ice bad to mediocre teams.

More shockingly, winning a Stanley Cup and icing good teams have failed to produce enough support in New Jersey, Carolina, and Tampa Bay.  Even in Detroit, "Hockeytown" has declining attendance despite over a decade of good teams including three Stanley Cups.


Contraction of all bad franchises


Strengths and Advantages:  It is the easiest thing to do.  The talent, redistributed would make the remaining teams a better product.

Weaknesses and Disadvantages:  It would be the most humiliating choice and loss of face.  There would be a huge loss of jobs.  Goodbye for the foreseeable future to that television contract.

This would be the easiest, simple solution.  It was done in the 1930s during the Great Depression, when the NHL shrank into the "original six."

But it would be the most humiliating and loss of face for the NHL when it compares itself to MLB, the NFL, and the NBA.  In effect, it would mean that hockey is not a "big four" sport and does not merit a "big four" television contract.

It would be especially humiliating for Bettman personally because he was the prime mover of the current direction and already has the humiliation of being the leader of the only major sports league to lose an entire season because of a strike.  He is also blamed in Canada for letting the two weakest franchises move to America too easily and for blocking and ignoring expansion to Canada.

The NHL players association would also be opposed because it would mean the loss of jobs and might lead to salary cuts as well.


Relocation of franchises to other American markets


Strengths and advantages:  Still keep all existing number of franchises.  No loss of jobs.  Dream of a big American television contract is still alive.  There are many large American cities still without NHL teams.  It is also the least humiliating of all the options.

Weaknesses and Disadvantages:  Only a small number of the new cites look like sure-fire winners.  Too many teams would have to be shifted into uncertain markets like the ones they are leaving.  There is also no guarantee of a large television contract though the shift to more friendly cities would probably boost ratings and attendance.  In addition, some American cities do not have a proper arena to play in.  Also, few new American investors have stepped forward.

This would probably be “Plan B” for Bettman and the Board of Governors.  It would be the least humiliating for them and it would keep their dream of a large American television contract alive.

In fact, it would boost it. Seattle, Milwaukee, Portland, and Hartford with a proper arena are the closest things to sure-fire hockey-friendly cities in the United States.

The problem is this is the total number of the "certain success" cities.  A rough calculation of the NHL-NBA cities without an NHL team is 18.  Many of these cities do not have proper NHL size arenas to play in.

Some northern cities where you might expect sure-fire success, like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Kansas City are tainted with being past NHL-WHA failures.  The past NHL experience in Cleveland was especially humiliating.  Columbus is already a suspect city.

Other destinations are as questionable as the places they are vacating.  Houston, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, San Diego, Salt Lake City, and Jacksonville are all cities with little contact with hockey.

Though hockey is now a success in San Jose, could its market support another franchise in San Francisco or Oakland?


Shift the focus to Canada and become a Canadian-oriented league


Strengths and Advantages:  Hockey "going home" to its "grassroots" environment where it is valued. There would also be mindless support in a lot of markets.

Weaknesses and Disadvantages:  Goodbye to funding from American television.  Do current American owners want to own franchises in Canada?  A Canadian-focused league would probably mean salary cuts.  Also, too many American franchises would be shifted at once.  Most new Canadian franchises want to be cheap and not act big league.  Also, there is only one Canadian investor.  There would also be territorial problems.

This is of course the option Canadians want—an NHL controlled and dominated by Canadians where "the good of the game" comes first.  That means no more losing to American markets.  There would be a stand for Canadian television independence and a pure Canadian hockey spirit!

This is of course the ideal, but the reality is something else.  While I've stated in my five articles on NHL expansion to Canada that probably the country could possibly support up to eight more teams, that does not absorb all the losing American franchises.

More serious is that for all their wishful thinking, Canadians have done virtually nothing to make this dream a possibility.

Hamilton is currently the only Canadian city without an NHL franchise that has an arena close to the NHL median of 18,000 seats.  It is the only city that has pledged money ($50 million) to renovate its arena to ensure long-term success.  It is also the only city with a confirmed investor in Jim Balsillie.

Quebec and Winnipeg lost their NHL franchises in a large part because they refused to build NHL-size arenas that could ensure long-term success even though they had over a decade to build them.

Since losing their franchises, Quebec has not built anything and Winnipeg built an arena that has slightly less seating than its old one, trying to compensate by having more luxury boxes.  But it is still 1,000 seats smaller than the condemned New York Islanders arena.

Also, no other city that has the population to have an NHL franchise has built an NHL-size arena or pledged itself to building one in hopes of getting a franchise.

If the current-size arenas in some Canadian markets were to be used (10,000-16,000 seats), it is unlikely that the current NHL salary structure could be maintained.  While that might sit well with lots of fans who believe professional athletes are grossly overpaid, it is unlikely to sit well with the NHL Players Association that wants to be paid like a "big four" American league.

Even the "mindless devotion" of Canadians to hockey can be questioned.  Even when Winnipeg had the Jets, they did not always sell out.  The Manitoba Moose does not always sell out.  Since Canadians are reluctant to build NHL-size arenas, are they willing to pay NHL ticket prices?  The current economic situation will not help either.  And no American television money will be coming to help things as it is with the Olympics.

There are two other problems.  Where are the Canadian investors?  So far, only Jim Balsillie has stepped forward.  When Winnipeg and Quebec folded, no Canadian investor stepped forward to save the franchises and build the needed new arenas.  No Canadian investor believed in them.  And if the American franchises relocate, do the current American owners want to own franchises in Canada?

Finally, there is the problem of territorial compensation.  Unfortunately, Saskatchewan and the Maritimes do not have the population, growth rate, or wealth to support an NHL team, so the bulk of the new franchises would have to be concentrated in southern Ontario and Montreal.

The return of the Montreal Maroons would mean settling with the Montreal Canadians.

The biggest headache would be Buffalo and Toronto settling with Hamilton, Kitchener, London, Oshawa, and the return of the Toronto Toros.  If this issue is going to be hung over the head of franchise shifts, it is unlikely there will be any mass trek of American franchises to Canada.


Shift all the losing American franchises to Europe


Strengths and Advantages:  The most daring and imaginative of all the options.  It’s a great way of starting a European branch of the NHL without diluting the product as happened in 1967.  Stanley Cup would gain prestige for being a truly international trophy.  There would be an extra round of moneymaking playoffs created with the North American champion meeting the European champion in the final.

The NHL champion could make a more truthful boast as being a "world champion".  Hockey would take a bold step forward to being the No. 2 sport in the world.  Franchises would be shifted into other "natural grassroots" environments where they would be more valued than in America.

There would be no loss of jobs and the number of franchises remains the same.  The humiliation of moving from American cities can be concealed behind the explanation of "going in an exciting new direction".  There is also the possibility of bigger markets than in America.

And if it works, a rich European television contract could appear.  It would please the CBC—Hockey Night In Canada would become Hockey Day In The World with triple-headers every Saturday instead of double-headers.

Weaknesses and Disadvantages: Since when has the NHL shown any daring or imagination?  Too many unknown factors could cause the experiment to blow up.  Does Europe have NHL size arenas?  Possible travel problems.

Will Canadian and American players and their families suck it up and move to Europe as the Europeans have had to do to North America?  Will Europeans build NHL-sized arenas and pay NHL ticket prices?  Will European television support the NHL?

This is the most exciting and intriguing of all the directions the NHL could travel.  Since the 1970s, the game has been steadily more Europeanized and this would be the final step confirming it.  Why bang your head against the American brick wall?  Why go to Canada with its too-small markets and its reluctance to build proper arenas?

Shifting every losing American franchise means not losing any teams or any jobs.  A European branch of the NHL would come into existence instantaneously without diluting the product as what happened when the NHL doubled in size in 1967.  The humiliation of failing in the United States would be lessened.

Relocating to the "big five" European countries of Russia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Finland, and Sweden could be like going to a "natural grass-roots hockey environment" like Canada.  If the experiment works, European television would likely offer a good television contract which while not being as big as an American one, would still be substantially more than what the NHL gets now.

Hopefully success in those countries would cause hockey to grow in other European countries besides the "big five".  The possibility of hockey growing across Europe and possibly to Japan and China as well would dwarf the present market.  Hockey would gain prestige as the "number two sport in the world behind soccer."

There would be an extra moneymaking round of playoffs with a final in which the European champion played the North American champion.  The winner would be a more true "world champion” than the winners of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA.  The Stanley Cup would gain prestige as being an "international trophy".

Football did not gain much of a foothold in Europe as shown by the folding of NFL Europe, but hopefully this would be different.  The NHL would be moving into "natural hockey environments" to start with, and the European franchises would not be minor league teams like NFL Europe but be competing for the top prize in professional hockey.

Against all this is the danger of going into the unknown.  Nobody, including this writer can predict how this experiment will turn out.  It is much more daring than when the CFL tried to double its size by admitting teams from the United States.

The worst that can happen is that all the franchises fold.  But that is no different than the contraction option that the NHL currently faces.

All the following questions would have to be successfully answered:

Will Europeans build NHL-size 18,000-seat arenas to play in?

Will Europeans pay NHL ticket prices?

Will Europeans consistently sell out games and support the new teams in other ways especially through marketing?

Will European television offer the NHL a contract to support the new franchises and the league as a whole?

How much will travel back and forth across the Atlantic affect play and expenses?

Will Canadian and American players and their families be willing to relocate to Europe?

Does the NHL have the nerve and the vision to try this?

So, there are the five options facing the NHL. What will happen is the true question.


Predictions


The NHL cannot stay in its present situation.  Soon, it will not be financially possible to do so.  Option one is out.

The NHL is too chicken-hearted and unimaginative to try option five unless they have a gun pointed at their head.  A European branch will have to wait.

The most likely thing to happen is some combination of options three and four, with option two sitting in the background.

Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee, and Hartford with a new arena will receive relocated franchises.  The NHL will gamble on Kansas City, Houston, and Oklahoma City.  They will be wary of other Ohio-Indiana franchises and not dare tamper with the San Jose market.

The NHL will not get a "big four" American television contract.  But if the relocated franchises are a success, they will get more than they are getting now.

Bettman and the board of governors will come to terms with Jim Balsillie, and Hamilton will get a relocated franchise in the renovated Copps Colosseum.  Compensation with Buffalo and Toronto will be settled—and no, it will not mean the end of the Buffalo Sabres.

Quebec, encouraged by the success of its 400th anniversary last year, will finally build a proper NHL size arena and get the Nordiques back.  Quebec investors will finally make themselves visible.  Then they might even build a stadium to get a CFL franchise too.

This in turn will shame Winnipeg into clearing its head and pledge itself to building an NHL-size arena to get the Jets back.

Will this in turn spur the other possible Canadian franchises to pledge themselves into building NHL size arenas on the understanding that they will get a franchise if they do so?

In any case, significant change is coming to the NHL.  It is just a matter of time.