Long live the King Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 The U.S. women's national hockey team said Wednesday that it will not participate in the IIHF World Championship beginning on March 31 in Plymouth, Michigan, citing more than a year of stalled negotiations with USA Hockey to secure what players consider fair wages and support. In the past, USA Hockey has provided the players with $1,000 per month during the six-month Olympic residency period. According to the players, USA Hockey pays virtually nothing during the remainder of the four-year period, despite its expectation that in each of the non-Olympic years, the players train full-time and compete throughout the year. "It is a full-time job and to not get paid is a financial burden and stress on players obviously. That is the conversation my husband and I are having right now," said player Jocelyne Lamoureux-Davidson. "Is playing going to be more stress than we can handle? Sadly it becomes a decision between chasing your dream or giving in to the reality of the financial burden." http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18906681/us-women-hockey-team-sit-world-championships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Unless the men are getting paid substantially more, I don't see how the women have any leverage. Can they make the argument that they're training more than the men and getting paid less? Even then, since it's not a revenue generator, it's a hard case to make. Plus, US Hockey is funded by beer leaguers and hockey moms. They going to raise fees on those groups to compensate pay raises? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR2711 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 So whats the difference between them and other Olympic Athletes? Im sure all the other sports athletes aren't paid by the US Olympics program either during off seasons, and they have to train as well. Develop a competitive league that generates revenue and you can get paid like NHL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Unless the men are getting paid substantially more, I don't see how the women have any leverage. Can they make the argument that they're training more than the men and getting paid less? Even then, since it's not a revenue generator, it's a hard case to make. Plus, US Hockey is funded by beer leaguers and hockey moms. They going to raise fees on those groups to compensate pay raises? I'm pretty sure they are making as much, if not more than the men. The U17, U18, and U20 (WJC) teams don't get paid. Would be a conflict of NCAA rules. And the men's team participants all have second jobs ;) Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Yeah, sucky situation but I would not be happy having my yearly USA Hockey dues raised. I already find it annoying that I have to pay $50 to volunteer coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Yeah, sucky situation but I would not be happy having my yearly USA Hockey dues raised. I already find it annoying that I have to pay $50 to volunteer coach. Much appreciated You are the core of USA hockey I've never taken a dime to coach, and to this day pay my way for flights and hotel. The bantam team I'm taking over next season paid out 15k for 2 coaches :/ Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 :tweet: @reporterchris: Hearing it's a four-year deal between the U.S. Women's National Team and USA Hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 http://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/19026627/usa-hockey-us-women-national-team-reach-agreement-avoid-boycott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 $70,000 a year seems absurdly high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYR2711 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 $70,000 a year seems absurdly high. I agree. I don't get why they have to be paid by USA Hockey when they aren't doing anything with USA hockey until they play in these tournaments or the Olympics. No other Olympic athletes are paid a yearly salary buy the US Olympic committee. I also wonder what this does for college players going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonGecko Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 $70,000 a year seems absurdly high. wow, great job if you can get it where is that money coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveByRichter35 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Yea this makes no sense to me. I agree with paying them during Olympic years and for the months where they're training for the Worlds but other than that? I mean, yea, the guys get paid because they're in the NHL. The women who play in the NWHL have that and I am sure all of Team USA play in that league anyway. Good for them though. I just hope my USA Hockey players insurance doesn't start increasing in order to compensate for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Laws of Economics don't really apply to affirmative action deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torontonyr Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 $70,000 a year seems absurdly high. 70k is absurdly high? Woof, I know people who play video games for a living and make 70k a month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 It's pretty much the equivalent of 100k/year Canadian. I don't really give a shit, but to me it's a question of where the money comes from. If it's money US hockey has earned through whatever means then it's a private matter and it's their business. If they want to pay hockey players that are objectively not very good, and never will be very good, that much money to play in one meaningful event every 4 years then have at it. If US Hockey gets government (public) funds then fuck this, it's a bad deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonGecko Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 70k is absurdly high? Woof, I know people who play video games for a living and make 70k a month Hey torontoNYR what do you say, Rangers vs Leafs - all time highest ticket price ever for a second round matchup?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Oh yeah, all the hipster douche bags will be all over that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 70k is absurdly high? Woof, I know people who play video games for a living and make 70k a month For a part-time job? Those gamers are in the top 1% of what they do. The women aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonGecko Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 For a part-time job? Those gamers are in the top 1% of what they do. The women aren't. has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with how much money other people are willing to pay for someone's services Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 For a part-time job? Those gamers are in the top 1% of what they do. The women aren't. They're not they best at what they do? Then why do they have so many gold and silver medals? Outside of Canada, where are there better female hockey players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 There's some really great swing bowlers in my town, probably drive the same revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LONG LONG LONG TIME FAN Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 2-0 victory over Canada tonite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Future Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 They're not they best at what they do? Then why do they have so many gold and silver medals? Outside of Canada, where are there better female hockey players? Uh, the men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted April 1, 2017 Author Share Posted April 1, 2017 Uh, the men? Men play women's hockey? Sent from my SM-G930V using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Head Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 It's pretty much the equivalent of 100k/year Canadian. I don't really give a shit, but to me it's a question of where the money comes from. If it's money US hockey has earned through whatever means then it's a private matter and it's their business. If they want to pay hockey players that are objectively not very good, and never will be very good, that much money to play in one meaningful event every 4 years then have at it. If US Hockey gets government (public) funds then fuck this, it's a bad deal. USA hockey has an annual operating budget of approx. 42 million per year. USA hockey membership fees (girls and boys) account for approx. 90% of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.