A New Golden Age of Canadian Hockey?
Are we entering a new golden age for hockey in Canada? Some would say that golden age never really ended. As Canada has evolved as a country, fans have tended to equate their national pride with hockey success. One only need look at the crowds celebrating Vancouver’s recent victories and the return of the NHL to Winnipeg to know this is true. Among the Canucks and Jets jerseys are the ever-present national flags.
It is certainly not news that fans use hockey to assert their nationalism in Canada. And it’s certainly not news that fans of all stripes pair team glory with national pride. It would be interesting to compare crowd shots of, say, the Chicago Blackhawks’ victory parade in 2010 with a theoretical Vancouver Canucks victory parade. The concentration of Canadian flags in the latter would almost certainly be higher than American flags in the former.
Canadian fans seem much more inclined to prove something – to assert that, yes, they are Canadian and, yes, they do love hockey. The language, from fans and media alike, surrounding the Thrashers’ move from Atlanta to Winnipeg indicates that some believe our national pride was hurt by the Jets’ initial departure, and the return of the NHL to Winnipeg redressed that and provided affirmation from the league and its American commissioner that Canada does matter, at least when it comes to hockey.
In a feature interview on CBC’s The National that was paired with the Hockey Night in Canada broadcast of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Finals, Peter Mansbridge grilled NHL commissioner Gary Bettman about the loss of the Jets from Winnipeg in 1996. Mansbridge pushed for an admission of guilt and seemed to equate the relocation of the Jets with a slight to Canada. Bettman responded that he, more than anyone, understands the importance of both hockey to Canada, and Canada to hockey.
Bettman’s comments can be taken in terms of emotion, of history, and of the spirit of the game or indeed the country. But, more significantly perhaps, they can be interpreted purely economically. Hockey as a commercial enterprise appears to be more dependent on Canada – the people and the idea – than ever. Herein is the true golden age of hockey.
While coverage of the Stanley Cup Finals between the Canucks and the Boston Bruins has been unrelenting in Canada, ratings in the U.S., though initially promising, were unimpressive for Game 2. Canadian teams are a significant drain on U.S. television ratings for the NHL. In an interview with George Stroumboulopoulos on the CBC before Game 2, Prime Minister Stephen Harper made several comments about hockey as a uniting force in Canada. While his contention that all Canadians are united by the game warrants serious scrutiny, Harper did acknowledge the almost yearly selection of “Canada’s team(s)” as Canadian franchises are eliminated from playoff contention.
He also said the the finals are better when a Canadian team is facing an American one, and he dreads the thought of an all-Canadian showdown (for rooting purposes, of course). From an economic (television ratings) perspective, an all-Canadian final is likewise in Bettman’s nightmares.
While George Vecsey of The New York Times is writing about how corporate greed overextended the NHL in the south and a return to Canada is a return to the purity of the game, more critical eyes should be focusing on the role of Canada in the new NHL economy. Vecsey uses the image of a brightly dressed Mountie to further his point that hockey “belongs” in Canada, but does so in purely emotional terms.
That the article was reprinted in The Globe and Mail (owned by the Thomson family, and David Thomson is a partner in True North Sports and Entertainment, which purchased and relocated the Thrashers to Winnipeg) is significant. Hockey may be pure and mythical and an essential part of the Canadian founding ethos (or any number of overwrought tropes), but it is infinitely more powerful when it is profitable.
Why Bettman was willing to send a team from a market with millions of people to one with approximately three-quarters of a million has to do in part with the willingness of Canadians to pay for hockey and of Canadian corporations to associate themselves with hockey. True North was smart to require season-ticket holders to make at least a three- to five-year commitment, locking down a revenue stream for a period of time when the team may have very little on-ice success.
The new owners are also pulling in revenue by charging fans for the right to wait for tickets. Those on the waiting list are charged a yearly membership fee of $100 after the first year’s $50 per-seat purchase price. The 8,000 people already on the list, quoted on HNIC, represent $400,000 in immediate non-refundable and non-transferrable revenue, and a potential $800,000 of annual revenue starting after the first season.
Thomson admitted he only agreed to become a part of an NHL ownership group once the finances aligned properly. The strong Canadian dollar is crucial in this scenario, as is the public’s hockey enthusiasm. The importance of hockey to Canadian advertisers can be seen on board advertisements at international competitions, where Canadian companies like Air Canada, Pizza Pizza, and Tim Hortons snap up space for their large television audiences much in the same way Japanese advertisers do at baseball games featuring prominent Japanese players. The corporate interest in Paul Henderson’s Summit Series jersey was likewise illuminating.
The profitability of hockey in Canada rests on two things: the value of the dollar and the willingness of Canadian fans to pay handsomely for the game they love. Perhaps the value of hockey in Canada is much like the value of a sports team to a city or a grinder to a hockey team. While there are some measurable fiscal benefits, the crux of the equation rests on the intangibles.
Photo courtesy of Reuters.
