Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
IPv6Freely

US Women's Team Won't Play 2017 WC

Recommended Posts

Good for them. 

 

As a side note, anyone have an idea as to how equitable things are in this area with Hockey Canada? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be in town with my gf's Women's C team for Nationals and we were really hoping to catch a few games of the WWC. I hope they get this worked out because it's likely my only chance to ever see the USWNT live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

So, any links to articles that explain this more?  Or does anyone want to explain it more here?

I'm particularly interested in what the different levels of support are for men vs. women in terms of the national team.  Am I right in remember that USA Hockey has a mens team that plays in the USHL?

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18906681/us-women-hockey-team-threatens-sit-world-championships

More detail in this article on how the women get pardon me, screwed financially.

USA Hockey has been and will always be an old boys club. Cheers for the women making these guys look like the dirtbags that they are.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, marka said:

Howdy,

So, any links to articles that explain this more?  Or does anyone want to explain it more here?

I'm particularly interested in what the different levels of support are for men vs. women in terms of the national team.  Am I right in remember that USA Hockey has a mens team that plays in the USHL?

Mark

Yep yep: The US NDTP.

1 hour ago, DarkStar50 said:

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18906681/us-women-hockey-team-threatens-sit-world-championships

More detail in this article on how the women get pardon me, screwed financially.

USA Hockey has been and will always be an old boys club. Cheers for the women making these guys look like the dirtbags that they are.

The same has been with the US Soccer (probably other national squads). It is sad that this is still happening but you pointed out the root of the problem. The only way to have a chance of correcting this is to remove the 'Club.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

 

So what does the men's team that plays in the USHL get?  I know that the USHL itself doesn't allow teams to pay players to preserve their NCAA eligibility, but does that apply to Team USA?

I wonder if USA Hockey could field a 'permanent' women's development team that plays in the NWHL?

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 218hockey said:

I don't think the NTDP team is actually in the USHL, although they may play a few of their teams.

 

http://www.usahockeyntdp.com/schedule/team_instance/2099269?subseason=317417

The NTDP is in the Eastern Conference...

 

http://www.ushl.com/page/show/1209109-teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I agree with it being an old boys club, and there could be some more support financially (I know that sport canada offers olympic athletes monthly ocmpensation for training, though not much either) The request to be basically put on salary in between olympics for the very little the women's team brings to USA Hockey from a business stand point is absolutely absurd.

Edited by adam14
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't being on salary between Olympics/Worlds etc. and monthly compensation for training the same thing?  Honest question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, adam14 said:

As much as I agree with it being an old boys club, and there could be some more support financially (I know that sport canada offers olympic athletes monthly ocmpensation for training, though not much either) The request to be basically put on salary in between olympics for the very little the women's team brings to USA Hockey from a business stand point is absolutely absurd.

Very good point. The financials usually do get trumped by the emotions in cases like this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, EJB said:

Isn't being on salary between Olympics/Worlds etc. and monthly compensation for training the same thing?  Honest question. 

The money Canadian athletes get is through own the podium, not directly through their respective governing bodies. So yes technically it is but its however it is coming from a different source. The women's hockey team wouldn't get their athletic assistance from Hockey Canada. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, adam14 said:

As much as I agree with it being an old boys club, and there could be some more support financially (I know that sport canada offers olympic athletes monthly ocmpensation for training, though not much either) The request to be basically put on salary in between olympics for the very little the women's team brings to USA Hockey from a business stand point is absolutely absurd.

Have you considered the growth in female participation in hockey in the states since Nagano? The women's national team has had a very real impact on USA Hockey for the last near 20 years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

Have you considered the growth in female participation in hockey in the states since Nagano? The women's national team has had a very real impact on USA Hockey for the last near 20 years.

 

No doubt. The question is do sponsors value that impact? At least in comparison to the mens' side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on this whole thing. On one hand, yes they deserve fair wages and all the other "support" provisions they are asking for. 100% on board with that.

That being said, as soon as they start into the equality thing, they lose me. I'm very happy to see women's hockey doing much better especially with the NWHL doing pretty well. That said, it's just a simple fact that there isn't the interest or money in women's hockey (yet). So it's not really a fair comparison. There can't be equality when you're trying to equate apples to oranges. 

I'm in full support, until I see tweets like this:

If that's the point they want to make, it's worth noting that there was a time in the history of men's hockey where pro players had to hold day jobs. As the popularity (and money) increased, so did their salaries. 

Look, I'm 100% all for fair pay. This is just a case where fair pay CAN'T be equal pay because the final products aren't equal. So I support these ladies... just leave equality out of it, please. 

 

(BTW - I hope this came out in text the way it did in my head, it's sometimes hard to make your point on a controversial topic without sounding like a dick... This entire topic is far from black and white in my opinion.)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NHL players were underpaid compared to NFL, MLB, and NBA players deep into the 80s/early 90s by a huge $$ margin. They still are in many ways dollar for dollar. The current womens team is playing simply for their love of the sport. In this day and age, they are getting zilch for what they put into their ability to achieve success at the international level. Considering how little USA Hockey does to support these women in this environment the women have every right to hold out from this tournament. This is their only perfect storm opportunity to hold USA Hockey accountable. Sorry folks, it's not 1980.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

4 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

If that's the point they want to make, it's worth noting that there was a time in the history of men's hockey where pro players had to hold day jobs. As the popularity (and money) increased, so did their salaries. 

Look, I'm 100% all for fair pay. This is just a case where fair pay CAN'T be equal pay because the final products aren't equal. So I support these ladies... just leave equality out of it, please. 

 

(BTW - I hope this came out in text the way it did in my head, it's sometimes hard to make your point on a controversial topic without sounding like a dick... This entire topic is far from black and white in my opinion.)

 

We're not talking about the NHL, we're talking about USA Hockey.  Different orgs, with a different charter.  I think its reasonable that the US National women's team get treated the same way as the US National mens team. NWHL vs NHL... Not so much.

 

My question is more along the lines of "what are the differences between the mens team and the womens team in terms of USA Hockey support for them, and can they be made equal".  For instance, the USHL seems to provide a key component of the competition for the mens U17 and U18 teams... That obviously won't work for the women's team.  Perhaps they can do something with D1 and D3 schools like the U18 team does?

I haven't seen anything on what sort of financial support the mens teams receive as compared to the womens team.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, marka said:

Howdy,

 

We're not talking about the NHL, we're talking about USA Hockey.  Different orgs, with a different charter.  I think its reasonable that the US National women's team get treated the same way as the US National mens team. NWHL vs NHL... Not so much.

 

My question is more along the lines of "what are the differences between the mens team and the womens team in terms of USA Hockey support for them, and can they be made equal".  For instance, the USHL seems to provide a key component of the competition for the mens U17 and U18 teams... That obviously won't work for the women's team.  Perhaps they can do something with D1 and D3 schools like the U18 team does?

I haven't seen anything on what sort of financial support the mens teams receive as compared to the womens team.

 

Mark

It was an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy,

10 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

It was an example.

 

Not a very good one.  :-)

If you're talking about a commercial entity... I tend to agree.  Women shouting "treat us equal!" and demanding equal wages / income to men when that income/wages is determined mostly by commercial market value and there's a huge disparity between the actual markets...  Not a lot of sympathy from me.

 

But this doesn't seem to be that.  USA Hockey, per their "we don't pay player salaries" thing and what I assume is their general charter of promoting hockey in the US without a gender bias, doesn't get to play that card.  The only one they get to play is "women aren't as interested in hockey as men, so we can't offer equivalent opportunities at all levels.  But even that is slippery, because they're presumably chartered with developing that actual interest, so there's a good bit of chicken and egg.

 

In this particular example, it sure seems like the women's team and the men's team should get roughly equivalent support, assuming that's reasonably possible.  USA hockey can't dictate things like a USHL league for women... But they can certainly provide the same type of facilities, coaching, expenses reimbursement, and an attempt at offering 'equivalent' competitive opportunities.

 

I don't mean to jump down your throat on this, but your initial post came off as kinda "Everyone knows women's hockey isn't as popular as men's, so they should suck it" (at least to me).  And I don't think that's a valid criticism of what seems to be going on.

 

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, marka said:

Howdy,

 

Not a very good one.  :-)

If you're talking about a commercial entity... I tend to agree.  Women shouting "treat us equal!" and demanding equal wages / income to men when that income/wages is determined mostly by commercial market value and there's a huge disparity between the actual markets...  Not a lot of sympathy from me.

 

But this doesn't seem to be that.  USA Hockey, per their "we don't pay player salaries" thing and what I assume is their general charter of promoting hockey in the US without a gender bias, doesn't get to play that card.  The only one they get to play is "women aren't as interested in hockey as men, so we can't offer equivalent opportunities at all levels.  But even that is slippery, because they're presumably chartered with developing that actual interest, so there's a good bit of chicken and egg.

 

In this particular example, it sure seems like the women's team and the men's team should get roughly equivalent support, assuming that's reasonably possible.  USA hockey can't dictate things like a USHL league for women... But they can certainly provide the same type of facilities, coaching, expenses reimbursement, and an attempt at offering 'equivalent' competitive opportunities.

 

I don't mean to jump down your throat on this, but your initial post came off as kinda "Everyone knows women's hockey isn't as popular as men's, so they should suck it" (at least to me).  And I don't think that's a valid criticism of what seems to be going on.

 

Mark

Hence the disclaimer at the bottom of my post because that's not at all what I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...