Sunday, May 5, 2019

Another Women's Hockey Boycott

In the lead up to the 2017 World Championships, members of the U.S. women's hockey team threatened to boycott the event over a number of issues, most notably their demand for better compensation (both in terms of salaries and travel conditions).  Adding to the situation was that those World Championships were set to take place in Plymouth, Michigan. 

The players and USA Hockey eventually came to an agreement days before the World Championships were set to begin, and the U.S. went on to win the event.  Since then, they've gone on to capture Olympic gold in PyeongChang before capturing another World title (in a sensational gold medal game) a few weeks ago in Finland.

All of this took place in the shadow of the CWHL's demise.  One of two professional women's hockey leagues in North America, the CWHL announced at the end of March that it was folding after 12 years.  The NWHL, the U.S.-based women's professional league, immediately responded that it planned on continuing operations and would be adding expansion teams in Toronto and Montreal for the upcoming season.

However, those plans have hit a snag.  Because, at the moment, the members of the U.S. Women's National Team have no intention of playing in the NWHL next season.  In a statement, which most of the team members (including such prominent players as Hilary Knight, Kendall Coyne Schofield and Brianna Decker) posted on social media, they declared that they wouldn't play in any North American pro league "until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves."  Several Canadian players, including those who played in the shuttered CWHL, have joined in the boycott.

"We come together, over 200 players strong, to say it is time to create a sustainable professional league for women's hockey," the statement said.  "We cannot make a sustainable living in the current state of the professional game.  Because of that, together as players, we will not play in ANY professional leagues in North America this season until we get the resources that professional hockey demands and deserves.  It's time for a long-term viable professional league that will showcase the greatest product of women's professional hockey in the world."

Players in the NWHL make as little as $2,000 a season and don't have health insurance.  That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to adequately train and compete at the highest level.  Many, if not all, of the players need to have another job just to make a living wage while still being expected to be available for the National Team and be in proper playing shape.

Contrast that to the NWSL, which is partially funded by US Soccer and the salaries of the players on the National Team are covered by US Soccer.  Or the WNBA, which has lasted more than 20 years and is still going strong.  WNBA salaries pale in comparison to those in European leagues (which is why a number of WNBA players, even the biggest stars, play overseas in the winter), but they at least have health insurance.  And the league is financially viable.  It wouldn't be the most successful women's professional sports league in history if it wasn't.

A big difference between the WNBA and the NWHL is that the WNBA has financial backing from the NBA.  It has throughout its existence.  The NHL, meanwhile, didn't want to pick a side between the NWHL and the CWHL, so they provided modest support to both leagues.  Now that there's only one league, the NHL has increased its financial commitment to the NWHL, although it's still not a significant amount.

That's not enough for the women's players, and their boycott puts pressure on the NHL to take on a larger role.  One of the biggest reasons for the WNBA's success is the NBA backing, and you'd have to figure the NWHL could also find some level of success with solid NHL support.  

It makes sense, too.  Especially since most of the teams have those relationships already.  Four of the five American-based teams are affiliated in some way with the NHL team in their home market, and Toronto and Montreal teams have had similar agreements with the Maple Leafs and Canadiens in the past.

What will  be the end result here?  I have no idea!  The NWHL is still going ahead with its plans to play next season, but I'm not sure how they'll be able to move forward without any of the top players from either the U.S. or Canada.  And I don't see how they can come to an agreement without raising salaries and providing health insurance, which I'm not sure they'd be able to do without more sponsorship dollars and/or funding from the NHL.  And I don't know where those sponsorship dollars come from without the participation of the top players.  They already don't have a TV contract, and it's not like this'll get them one.

Without those things, the league isn't viable.  But a professional league without the best players isn't viable, either.  And the players are totally justified in their demands for better salaries and, perhaps even more importantly, health insurance.  If you want to call it "professional" hockey, the players need to be able to treat it as their full-time job.  Which they're not able to do in the current environment.

Two years ago, the boycott was a success and the players were able to get pretty much everything they were demanding.  This is a much different situation, but the point they're making is a similar one.  You can't call the league "professional" without treating it as such.  And there's much more that goes into a professional sports league than simply paying salaries.

Hopefully this doesn't mean the NWHL will meet a similar fate as the CWHL.  Nobody wants that.  And, frankly, one league makes more sense than two (which a lot of people were saying all along).  It certainly makes more sense than zero.  But, unless a solution is reached, the NWHL could easily find itself in that exact situation.  Which would be even worse.  Then the players won't even have a league to boycott.

No comments:

Post a Comment