This isn't a problem to me. The WNBA took 15 years before a single team turned a profit. It's nearly 20 years old and I don't think all of the teams are profitable yet. I don't think any sports leagues turn immediate profits.
Yeah, I edited that part out. But 20 years is ridiculously long. the NBA certainly was profitable in 20 years (1950). If you want to talk BBA (1946), that's 66 and I'd say the NBA had broken even by then. I'm also going to wager that, wars not withstanding, the NFL- pre superbowl- and the MLB were profitable in 20 years. But that's going out on a bit of a limb.
What we should be talking about is how much money the NHL has.
The NHL has no money. The League itself makes absolutely no money. It is a 501(c)(6), I believe. The entity known as the NHL doesn't really make money, it is paid by all thirty teams in order to exist. It's like a publisher for a movie or a game, it does advertising work and takes a piece of the pie, but the NHL (the league office) to avoid taxes, only pays salaries and other expenditures needed, and then pays the teams and player their cut. What you are about to cite is probably the sum of the profits of each team in the league, which is boosted by a TV deal and still probably isn't enough to make ends meet for some teams.
The NHL measures it's revenue in the billions.
It also probably measures it's expenses in the billions. I mean, the salary cap is 70 million dollars, there's 30 teams, that's 2.1 billion if each team spends up to the cap on players alone. Plus other expenditures. Which means teams lose money. Some teams make a shit ton, but not all of them.
$3.7bil
A) This is gross revenue. That means they take IN 3.7 billion dollars. They do not gross 3.7 billion a year. In fact, they spend nearly 2.1 billion dollars a year on players (70 mil* 30)
B) It is not the entity that is the league that makes 3.7 billion dollars. This 3.7 billion is made by teams. In fact, I went and added up all the operating revenue on Forbes list and got 3.7 billion dollars. So the league takes a cut (like fifty million to pay everyone it employs as well as other necessary expenses), and distributes it to the teams. The teams then use that money to pay players, coaches, other expenditures. For a third of the league, this helps keeps the losses out of the double digits of millions.
There are currently 6 teams
Oh boy. A CWHL is completely nonviable for the league. Teams would have to move or expand. The NHL will not invest 18 million dollars to have women's hockey in just Canada. Brampton would move, Calgary would probably move, another team would probably move.
To put that in perspective, that would be $170 to someone earning $35,000.
A) Someone earning 35,000 has expenditures. 170 bucks is a lot to someone earning 35,000. I can't go spend 170 bucks whenever the hell I feel like it.
I'm sorry if this touched a nerve with you.
Only because I dislike the supreme naivete on this site sometimes. The other day someone suggested we just make Medicare free for everyone. Because it's that easy. I figured they were a high schooler or something. But you, you're what? 26, 27 (guessing on username here)? You should know a little better. You should know 170 is a lot to someone making 35k. If I go ask my roommate for 170 and tell him I'm not gonna pay him back, he'd probably punch me and tell me to fuck off.
I like women's hockey.
So do I. I'm just more realistic with it. It's fantastic, but the NHL isn't cash flush and owners will not vote for this. Women's hockey would grow the game and be great, but simply saying "Oh the NHL should throw money at it" is so simplistic it's frustrating.
Do you remember when the NFL tried to expand to Europe and they started a league? And they just threw money at it and it ended up being a massive failure? This would be more sucessful in the long run, maybe. But it would have to compete with major sports in every city. The numbers just aren't there right now, and the NHL owners (who would be the ones to establish such a league) aren't going to spend the money on it. Those teams in the red can't afford 20 mil being taken away from the pot. They just can't. That's why you would have to rely on the top 8 profitable teams, and then you've got problems with venues and prime time games. Like, look at Chicago. If women played in the summer, they'd have to compete with all the long established baseball teams but they'd have an arena. But during the winter? Where would they play? UIC would be my best bet, and I don't know if that's an ice rink. But they can't play prime time games at any other reasonable rink in the city that has seats and other amenities necessary.
There is a real world example of another men's sport successfully funding a women's league and I admire them for it.
Because basketball is easier to fund. You need a court. There are enough courts in Chicago that the women wouldn't have a hard time finding a place to play. They don't need much equipment. It's easy
Also, successful is probably a stretch. You cited numbers for 2013, which, IIRC, was the best year for the league because that was Griner's entrance. There was so much hype around that. I don't know if it's kept up. I looked at attendance, and it isn't rising. They sold an average of 40 tickets more this year per team in a more popular sport. With a larger collegiate player base. And they have massive talent drain.
If you want a successful woman's hockey league, the best place to do it would be overseas somewhere, but then you run into a lack of hockey rinks. It has to be able to compete with men's league, and be able to grow the game. The NBA has NO teams in the black in terms of net income. The NHL has ten.
I would love it if the NHL followed suit.
Feelings alone don't make it viable. It's a huge cost investment, and the NBA was banking on growing women viewership by using a huge cash windfall during it's peak years. The NHL has no such luxury. It would be great, sure, but it isn't viable, that's what I'm saying.