VS 
There is an interesting report from the Toronto Star about how the six Canadian teams made up 31% of the league’s ticket revenue last season.
Atop the list of income winners is the Maple Leafs, who nudged out the Montreal Canadiens to lead the league this past season with $1.9 million worth of ticket revenue per game. Based on 41 home games, that’s $77.9 million a year – not counting revenue from pre-season games. A year ago, the Leafs generated $1.5 million a game, according the report obtained by the Star from several league sources.
The report goes on to say that the league, taking out the six strongest Canadian teams, is only growing at about a 2% percent clip. It also showed that:
…eight U.S. teams – the Coyotes, the Florida Panthers, Chicago Blackhawks, New York Islanders, Atlanta Thrashers, Washington Capitals, Nashville Predators and St. Louis Blues – generated less than half the amount of ticket revenue this season of the Edmonton Oilers and Ottawa Senators. At $1.2 million in ticket revenue per game, the Oilers and Senators garnered the least amount of ticket money among Canadian clubs.
I wrote a while back about ways that the NHL could and should manage some of the issues that they have as a league. I think what these numbers support is a reduction/contraction in some of the teams. What I don’t think would be wise, at least for the game in the U.S., is to expand North of the border. But I guess one would have to ask, if there is money to be made in Canada why not move more teams there?
I think the NHL is at a very big crossroads. As a league that, as the Star report points out, is a gate receipt league, they have very little room for expanded revenue streams. They have to decide how and where they are going to market their product.
Canada, is not the answer for a bigger and better revenue generating league. No offense to my neighbors up North but I think if the league wants to be a top tier league they have to figure out how to generate revenue in the U.S. That has to start with a better TV deal than the current one. One of the reason that the NFL took off was because of its lucrative television contracts. It allowed all of their teams to share in a larger piece of the pie…drawing in fans, but also making middle market teams more viable.
Whatever the solution is, the league needs to figure it out quickly. A 2% growth rate with a very limited TV revenue deal does not bode well for the future of the sport. Bettman needs to act now if he is serious about returning hockey to its rightful place at the sporting table.
What are your thoughts? Should the NHL move more teams up North or should they contract and start building a stronger U.S. base?
{This is going up at Nosebleed Radio as well}
8 responses so far ↓
1 Chris // May 31, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If I’m Paul Kelly and the NHLPA I want two more teams in Canada and I want them now, thank you very much. He pretty much said that in the article.
When my salary is based on the overall revenue of my employer, as is the case in the NHL, I want to do everything I can to increase and expand those income streams.
I wonder if we’ll ever see the day when the NHLPA goes on strike with the demand that teams be placed in Winnipeg and southern Ontario. Wouldn’t that be incredible?? I can definitely see it happening.
2 HockeyWench // May 31, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I do not think that the NHL should move the teams up North. What they need to do is to promote the league and the Southern teams more and negotiate TV contracts with have better media coverage. I live in Atlanta and my team is the Thrashers who I support dearly. The problem we have in Atlanta is that our local newspaper, the AJC, has done very little to help promote the team, they actually criticize every move the team makes. The best coverage we get is out of the fan Bloggers who actually do more research to back up their words. Our local tv stations do not brodcast the games during regulation season, the games are only broadcast on SportSouth. We need a stronger base here and we could get it if we had more backing.
3 Chris // May 31, 2008 at 4:19 pm
@chris - I know where you are coming from, it would seem that you need to chase the revenue. But what I see is the issue of taking the league from a gate receipt league to a more “all around” league where you can generate revenue from a number of sources. Moving more teams up north would pretty much kill hockey here in the US where I think more of the TV money can come from — again no offense to Canada that is just what I believe.
4 Chris // May 31, 2008 at 4:20 pm
@hockeywench - I think that the league moved too fast to expand south. I think that some of these teams need to be contracted to get a better fan base to some of the teams who can support them. IMHO
5 Space // Jun 1, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I remember the days that the NHL did have major network contracts, they were on NBC and ESPN. Since then I don’t know what has happened, but the NHL has shot themselves in the foot when it comes to being big time anymore. Hockey is like Soccer in the US, except that Hockey is slowly declining and Soccer is on the rise. When Soccer can make it to the big time with a “fledging league” like the MLS compared to the NHL, it is time to contract.
I am a casual follower of hockey and I love theolympic hockey more than anything. Not because of the olympics, but the style of play and NO FIGHTING, the fighting takes away for the game. Just image if you had fighting in basketball, baseball, or football. Wouldn’t that take away from the game and turn you away. Then again thats why most people watch Hockey in the US anyways right, for the fighting?
6 Walt Webb // Jun 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm
First and foremost with the economic climate in the NHL today, you could place teams in a number of Canadian venues and that team will make money. Without the Canadian fan base there is no NHL
If some of the southern US fans can’t see the sport for what it is, then they don’t deserve a franchise and it should be moved where it will be appriciated.
Gary Betman should have a can tied to his ass and hit the road. If has made no in roads to the US in the 15 years he has been the commisioner. The job requires a dynamic personallity with credibility. Not some snivelling lawyer with the persona of a wet dish rag. Wayne Gretzsky would be a great fit for the job, you would have to convince him to take it though, lol
7 Chris // Jun 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@walt webb I agree in parts. I think Bettman has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to marketing the product. He is one of the least available/visible commish’s I have seen in a while. It’s almost like he appears to present the cup and that is it.
I actually think someone like Bobby Clarke would be a good man for the job. The owners liked GB because he got them a great deal, but he buried the league at the same time getting that deal. Now he has to figure out how to get them out or get someone else who can.
8 RTBjr73 // Jun 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think NHL needs to get a “hockey” person to run the league. Gary ain’t cutting it. I think the somebody to be the commish would be someone like Brett Hull. I listened to a radio interview of him about a year ago, when he was in St. Louis for the retirement of his jersey, and his views were more in tune with what NHL needs to do than I have EVER heard come from Gary Bettman.
Leave a Comment