Pros Score On Olympic Stage

With orientation camps for the Canadian and US Men’s 2010 Olympic ice hockey teams taking place in August, excitement for hockey has experienced a little late summer boost. And that’s always a good thing.

The NHL season is around two months away from full action, and it never hurts to get the hardcore fans talking stick-and-puck even if it is regarding an event (the Winter Olympics) that will happen well after the actual NHL 2009-10 begins.

Anytime sports fans ponder a gathering of the best players in a sport, you’re bound to get a little media buzz, and some spirited debate on who should make which team. For the loyal fans of hockey, this speculation is always a fun exercise. Almost like a fantasy draft.

Let’s face it, it’s been said many times: “people love lists.” Top 10 this, bottom five that, you name it, we like to make them. Especially sports fans. Heck, that’s essentially what Halls of Fame are for.

But along with the speculation about which pro players should play in the Olympics comes the inevitable argument on why pros should NOT be allowed to participate. Well I’d like to address this argument once and for all:

First off, the argument that it’s more interesting when the amateurs play: In hockey, at least, this is a ridiculous argument spurred on by the greatness of the "Miracle on Ice"—a once in a lifetime event that was particularly poignant because the Russians were essentially pros anyway. But if it's so compelling and exciting to watch the non-pros play, then why is there almost NO INTEREST in the World Junior Championships every year? Ratings are virtually non-existent in the US and, in some markets, they don’t even broadcast it. Most Americans couldn’t tell you where the US team placed after it’s over.

Players can get injured. One word: INSURANCE. If you don’t already see the advantages of getting back a more experienced player in return for the necessary risk of them getting injured, then you have to at least admit that offseason injuries are ALWAYS risky for the team. That’s why these players are so heavily insured. Seldom do more than a couple of players on each team get injured anyway, so the percentage is small to begin with. And don't even get me started on pre-season games.

If the pros don’t play then the gold medal is devalued. If you are going to hold a competition to determine who the “best in the world” are every four years, you’d better have the best athletes competing. If an amateur team wins the gold while better players are not competing, the gold has no real clout.  When the best players play, the winners can, only then, claim genuine supremacy in the sport.

It makes the players better. Going up against the best players in the world raises the level of everyone who participates. The teams who have rights to these players benefit significantly from the experience their player(s) gain from this competition. And the players are often rejuvenated after it’s over, cherishing their chance to perform on the world stage.

It’s good for the sport. Seeing the best players in hockey compete improves the exposure of the game. If the US wins the gold, grass roots hockey gets a massive shot in the arm. If, for instance, Mike Modano scores the winning goal for team USA, the Dallas Stars get the dividend from his increased notoriety.  

The players who go want to go. Representing one’s country in international competition, especially at the level of the Olympics, is an honor for all involved…from Bill Guerin to Evgeni Nabakov. If a player doesn’t want to go, he doesn’t have to.  But, almost to the man, every player who has had the opportunity to compete in the Olympics has praised the opportunity.

A player has more responsibility to his pro team than his country? Rubbish. Playing for a pro team is about money. Playing for your country is a birthright and an issue of national pride. “God and country first,” as they say. You serve your country in the Olympics with much the same sentiment as you would serve your country in a time of war. Not for the money….Not for career…For your country! The fact that this “service” also benefits the players’ overall skill levels, their home team’s performance, and the sport as a whole, is a happy benefit of such commitment.

When they negotiate their next CBA, the NHLPA may decide not to participate in future Olympics. This will be a loss for the sport and the Winter Olympics, but it will be the players' right to decide. An Olympic gold in the sport of Ice Hockey will, alas, become meaningless—in the same way gold medals in Olympic basketball were before the Dream Team hit the stage. France or Germany could win the gold in the past, but everyone knew where the real "best team" was from. Additionally, the NHL will lose its most effective showcase, a showcase that does more to promote the game than any 10 exhibition games in London.   

Because the competitions of other winter sports in the Olympics have never reached the level of the NHL, the athletes who compete and win their events can truly claim to be at the top of their sport. In Ice Hockey, however, they do not have this luxury without the full participation of the pros. Soccer has a World Cup that is, effectively, more important to the sport than the Olympics.

Hockey lacks a similar event, and therefore is left with the Olympics to act as a high-level international showcase for the sport. Take it away if you must, to protect the monopoly of the NHL, but I suspect we'll miss it when it's gone.