I just read this on TSN, and I did not know this, what do you guys think?

Question

http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=219010&hubname=nhl

So the league is actually making money? This I did not know. Not that much money anyway. I mean this explains why they don't want to put it on ESPN, they're making plenty of bucks already, there's no reason to switch. This makes me mad though, they should be trying to develop the league further, get it back in the spotlight a little, instead of just sitting back and collecting money. I mean, it's not always going to be profitable, they should improve it for the future.

Anyway, I just did not know about this, what are you guys' opinions? Did you know this? Or am I the only one that was in the dark?

"Like I'm telling you..": WOW! You truly are a bucket of knowledge! Where do you get these rating numbers? Thanks for all that info, it really filled me in. I knew the league was making money, but not THAT kind of money. With all the dough they're making on local TV, why not sign a less-than-lucrative national deal with ESPN? Even if ESPN didn't want hockey, they'd gladly accept an offer where they don't have to pay a lot of money. Do you know how much ESPN offered the NHL after the lockout? Or was it the other way around?

BTW, is TSN owned by ESPN? The channels look the same, they both have the same bottomline and they both have sportscenter. What's that all about?

Chris?? You can't skate??? And you call yourself a Canadian, pssh, I'm more Canadian than you! LOL, jk, jk. But seriously, you should try skating, it's hella-fun. Especially skating while playing hockey!

Answer 1

Mike,

The league has always made money, and lots of it. However, in the past, the money was distributed unevenly. One of the things that the new CBA did was evened the field somewhat.

Some of thie things you should be aware of that aren't specifically mentioned in the article.
For the NHL, National television revenues are not that large of a percentage of the total revenue package. So, while the contracts today are larger than they were 10 years ago, they still don't amount to much.

Where the NHL has been making money is local television revenues. With the exception of the LA Kings, all teams have at least tripled their revenues.

Corporate Sponsorship. In 1993, Anheuser-Busch paid the NHL $15MM a year to have Budweiser as the official beer of the NHL. In 2004, the contract was worth $27MM a year. (A pittance however to the $400MM a year they pay MLB). Total Corporate Sponsorship for the NHL is now almost $20MM/team compared to $6MM a team in 1993.

Again, if you look at the league's financial books over the last 10-15 years, the league and a lot of the teams, have done very well.

However, when the NCAA, NBA and NFL are getting billion dollar TV deals (and MLB's current deal is $450MM), the $60MM that NBC/Versus paid is nothing. But again, in 1992, ESPN was paying $40MM/yr. However Fox paid almost $100MM at it's high point.

In Canada, HNIC had the 2nd best ratings in history
In Canada, local games had their highest viewership ever
In Canada, paid attendance was at an all-time high with 101.4% capacity at Canadian rinks
In Canada, NHL Revenues were $623MM, the highest ever

In America, National Television Ratings were consistent with the last 30 years
In America, Local Television ratings were their highest ever with several teams topping 5.0 (Canadian teams tend to be around 10-15)
In America, Paid attendance was the highest ever.
In America, NHL Revenues were $1.15B, the highest ever

The league for the most part is healthy. There are some spots (Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta) where they are unable to get good TV deals, or good corporate sponsorship, but these are in the minority.

Last year, NHL attendance was the highest ever at 20,861,767.

All they need is a huge US TV contract



Mike
I work for the NHL, I see what comes through here. keeps an old guy like me off the streets. I have a ton of connections too. I know the number ESPN offered the NHL, and I think everybody would have laughed it in here as well. It was pretty bad.

It's a no-win situation for Bettman.
1) He accepts the ESPN deal and the game is available to more people, but critics will complain about the money.

or

2) He takes the money and has the game available in less markets, and he gets criticized for lack of exposure of the game.

So, whether he took the exposure or took the money, all the critics will say he should have taken the other.

I'm not a Bettman fan, but I also know enough about the inner machinations of the league to know he's not the problem.

Bob mentioned in a previous post that Bettman's the problem because he presided over two work stoppages. Well, that is what the owners hired him to do. The other candidates weren't willing to make a stand..

Answer 2

I wasn't aware of the number but I knew they were making a lot of money. The reason they are not on ESPN is ESPN didn't want hockey, not that hockey doesn't want ESPN. I have a feeling that will change when the next round of negotiations comes due.
Until then, they're still to be known as Entertaining Sports Purposely Neglected.

Answer 3

i think preseason can be summed up this way... the mindset that the coaches have in the preseason is (usually) totally different from the regular season. (especially post season). i buy into that whole "experimental" idea. they can actually try out schemes that they'd never risk during the regular season. so the whole idea is to try out strategies and see their effects on a real human opponent, rather than hypothesizing in the video room, or on a whiteboard w/ the asst. coaches. therefore, by default, the preseason is not a good indicator at all. HOWEVER, that implies that if those "experiments" work out (once or twice, in the few opportunities that they'll get in the preseason), it shows the coaching staff the promise / potential that those plays / lines / matchups that may work in the regular season. so, bottom line, the preseason exposes potential for regular season results. but it definitely doesn't guarantee them. besides, if a play worked well against a preseason opponent, i'm pretty sure that the same opponent will try to learn a lesson from being outmatched / outplayed. keep in mind that some of the "tests" a coach might try are not so much to beat a particular opponent, but more ... "internal", like line chemistry. $0.02

Answer 4

I knew this in general, but I didn't know all the specifics "Like I'm Telling You" provided! I figured the league was doing okay now... The lockout was painful, but some of the changes HAD to happen in order for there to actually still be an NHL.

I do believe hockey is gaining popularity. In my opinion, more young people are starting to become hockey fans. It is a "new NHL" and people are starting to note the differences. (They're slow, lol. People as a group can be kinda dumb.) I think exciting young players are successfully drawing fans.

Like Sidney Crosby. The Sidney Crosby factor is big. (In my experience, even the Crosby-haters want to watch him, even if they're just hoping to see the Penguins lose a game.)

In Pittburgh, I noticed a lot of college-aged kids are watching the Pens now and going to games, and as much as I hate to say it, a lot of Crosby-ogling girls of many different ages are too.

The more popularity the league gains, the more sponsors jump on board, too. I think you have only to look at Sidney Crosby to see that, as he has been involved in even more things this year (a clothing line, endorsing more PepsiCo. products, and he's supposed to be in a commercial for Reebok that's going to be played in the U.S. That's a big deal right there.

I'm not worried about Crosby being shoved down anyone's throats too much here, he's still not the end-all beat-all of sports in the States. People in the States love to love celebrities/athletes anyway; they want to hear/see as much about them as possible. (Again, that non-existant respect for privacy bothers me, personally.)

HOWEVER... I have been getting a little tired of his name being tossed around so much recently, even because I've had reasons to mention him myself... I just want the season start! I just want to see the Pens play!

Answer 5

Hey CZ. The Panthers are not in Miami. They are in Sunrise. In Broward county. It's a whole another universe compared to Miami. Anyway. I knew teams were making money. The Panthers , which are my hometown team, seem to have stablized a little. There is alot of interest here, despite what others think. Those people are ill informed.

Answer 6

Well im lucky enough to live where theres 3 teams in the area so I have something to watch but otherwise im disappointed that nhl isnt televised as much anymore even the playoffs last yr was terrible with the lack of coverage

Answer 7

They need to be back on ESPN and they need to move teams back to Hartford, Winnipeg, and Quebec City and out of cities light Tampa, Miami (Panthers) and Atlanta ( they tried that before and it did not work). As for money they have made some but not the numbers they are saying and to raise the Cap

Answer 8

HEY BUCKET OF KNOWLEDGE IS MY TERM/NAME :D


Lol but seriously "like im telling you" blow us outa the water why dont'ya :D:D man hes awesome, hes like einstein of this age, like a hockey einstien, it's cool. i wanna be a scout for the leafs, well actually i wanna be their goalie, but i cant skate yet, yup ive never actually skated on ice before, looks fun, i dont even own skates! OMG MISSIONS ON SALE AT SPORTCHECK $120?!!! SEE YOU IN AN HOUR!



lol jk, if i had 120 bucks id go buy them cause thats such a good deal, but OMFG i ramble.. anyways....

BOO


Erica- PFFFFFT WANNABE :D trying to give long answers to act smart xDD jkjk,

Answer 9

I assumed they were making money, if they were in the red, we as fans would have definitely known.

At this point in time, I think the NHL would love to be back on ESPN.