http://sports.yahoo.com/news/philly-columnist-illustrates-culture-change-needed-at-usa-hockey-033445472.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw


- PhillySportsGuy

I can admit that I ahvent full educated myself with whats going on, but whats the problem here?

Why are the women boycotting?

Their product needs to be on tv or it will fail

I'm proud that my coach shows support for equitable hockey across all the land and the seas

I can admit that I ahvent full educated myself with whats going on, but whats the problem here?

Why are the women boycotting?
- jak521

It all comes down to the stipend team players get per year they are on the national team. The women aren't getting money from USA Hockey where the men are from what I have seen.

That hawks/lightning game was a fun watch. Pretty neat that TK is getting 8 mins of ice time when the lighting has a bunch of TK's flying around all game

I can admit that I ahvent full educated myself with whats going on, but whats the problem here?

Why are the women boycotting?
- jak521

Basically, USA hockey offers no help in developing women's hockey. They also don't receive the modern luxuries that the Men's team does (guests allowed to stay with them, luxury travel, paid travel expenses, etc.)

The men are all multi-millionaires, so they don't need money. Their training and development is paid for by their NHL teams. The women don't have that luxury, but they still need to train and develop like the men.

Despite all of this, USA Hockey has contributed millions towards men's development programs and nothing towards women's. The women medal every year and are always one of the favorites to win the gold, but still receive less in aggregate than the men.

It all comes down to the stipend team players get per year they are on the national team. The women aren't getting money from USA Hockey where the men are from what I have seen.
- dragonoffrost

So i just read a whole bunch of stuff bec I have been seeing it a lot and really havent had the time to look at anything...

The mens team actually doesnt get paid according to USA Today.

The women want US Hockey to pay a living wage, but have not given a number...

Listen, I am all for women being FAIRLY compensated, but a living yearly wage for what?

My cousin is a professional lacrosse player, and a damn good one at that, and he makes peanuts. Whats the end goal here?

http://www.usatoday.com/s...ey-team-boycott/99683488/

Basically, USA hockey offers no help in developing women's hockey. They also don't receive the modern luxuries that the Men's team does (guests allowed to stay with them, luxury travel, paid travel expenses, etc.)

The men are all multi-millionaires, so they don't need money. Their training and development is paid for by their NHL teams. The women don't have that luxury, but they still need to train and develop like the men.

Despite all of this, USA Hockey has contributed millions towards men's development programs and nothing towards women's. The women medal every year and are always one of the favorites to win the gold, but still receive less in aggregate than the men.
- PhillySportsGuy

Okay so then development issues. Totally fine with that. I kept seeing a stress on a living wage.

Also agree that if you offer one team certain amenities, you should offer the same to the other...

So i just read a whole bunch of stuff bec I have been seeing it a lot and really havent had the time to look at anything...

The mens team actually doesnt get paid according to USA Today.

The women want US Hockey to pay a living wage, but have not given a number...

Listen, I am all for women being FAIRLY compensated, but a living yearly wage for what?

My cousin is a professional lacrosse player, and a damn good one at that, and he makes peanuts. Whats the end goal here?

http://www.usatoday.com/s...ey-team-boycott/99683488/
- jak521

There is no realistic end goal. It's a pretty simple lesson in economics. If you're trying to sell a product that there's very little interest in then you're not going to make much money. Very few people have an interest in women's hockey so to demand a living wage when it would be economically stupid for anyone to provide it is a SJW move at its finest. If I was US Hockey I'd just ignore their boycott.

There is no realistic end goal. It's a pretty simple lesson in economics. If you're trying to sell a product that there's very little interest in then you're not going to make much money. Very few people have an interest in women's hockey so to demand a living wage when it would be economically stupid for anyone to provide it is a SJW move at its finest. If I was US Hockey I'd just ignore their boycott.
- EducatedOpinion

Problem is if you ignore the boycott, Womens hockey not just in the US suffers. I'm thinking there will be an agreement as to they team getting something more than they currently get but not getting the annual wage. Probably travel and expenses when representing US Hockey, but not the top end stuff the men get.

Okay so then development issues. Totally fine with that. I kept seeing a stress on a living wage.

Also agree that if you offer one team certain amenities, you should offer the same to the other...
- jak521

I think a lot of it is perception as well. They've been treated like second class for a long time. When USA Hockey unveiled their new jerseys, they didn't even notify the women, let alone invite them to the unveiling (the men walked around and modeled the jerseys).

It all starts with development. If they contributed some time and money to developing a professional women's league, the league would (hopefully) become somewhat successful. This success would contribute higher salaries to the players. Higher salaries = "Living wage"

I think a lot of it is perception as well. They've been treated like second class for a long time. When USA Hockey unveiled their new jerseys, they didn't even notify the women, let alone invite them to the unveiling (the men walked around and modeled the jerseys).

It all starts with development. If they contributed some time and money to developing a professional women's league, the league would (hopefully) become somewhat successful. This success would contribute higher salaries to the players. Higher salaries = "Living wage"
- PhillySportsGuy

Kind of like how soccer has done?

There is no realistic end goal. It's a pretty simple lesson in economics. If you're trying to sell a product that there's very little interest in then you're not going to make much money. Very few people have an interest in women's hockey so to demand a living wage when it would be economically stupid for anyone to provide it is a SJW move at its finest. If I was US Hockey I'd just ignore their boycott.
- EducatedOpinion

The numbers for women's hockey during the olympics were actually pretty good. Networks were actually begging Team Canada and Team USA to play another game after the Olympics because the ratings were so strong. Just because you don't want to watch women's hockey doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.

There is no realistic end goal. It's a pretty simple lesson in economics. If you're trying to sell a product that there's very little interest in then you're not going to make much money. Very few people have an interest in women's hockey so to demand a living wage when it would be economically stupid for anyone to provide it is a SJW move at its finest. If I was US Hockey I'd just ignore their boycott.
- EducatedOpinion

I get that its deeper than just that... but I also see the economics behind it.

The living wage thing is wild in my mind, and again takes me back to my cousin. He was a 4x all-american lacrosse goalie. He was semi-finalist and finalist for the NCAA player of the year. He was the first goalie drafted in his draft. He was arguably the most important player to his team in the nation. He is still one of the most important players on his team at the pro level, and he makes like $15,000 a year. He works his ass off at his other job, and spends pretty much every weekend from April-August in his sport. That's just the reality of playing lacrosse. Had he been the best player in the most important position in say football (QB) he would be making MILLIONS of dollars right off the bat... But again, its lacrosse. He is just happy to be playing with the best in the world.


Now, when it comes to developing, I totally agree with the women. USA Hockey should do a much better job and developing and marketing. They should invest in the womens program. The women should get the same amenities the men have with traveling and the such. But they lose me with the living wage bit.. Thats crazy talk to me.

I think a lot of it is perception as well. They've been treated like second class for a long time. When USA Hockey unveiled their new jerseys, they didn't even notify the women, let alone invite them to the unveiling (the men walked around and modeled the jerseys).

It all starts with development. If they contributed some time and money to developing a professional women's league, the league would (hopefully) become somewhat successful. This success would contribute higher salaries to the players. Higher salaries = "Living wage"
- PhillySportsGuy

I know if there were a pro womens team in philly. It would have my support more so than the flyers, because they need it and I'm not paying the ridiculous prices for NHL games and everything that goes with it. I'd be down there with my daughter all the time, all over it.

New blog

I think a lot of it is perception as well. They've been treated like second class for a long time. When USA Hockey unveiled their new jerseys, they didn't even notify the women, let alone invite them to the unveiling (the men walked around and modeled the jerseys).

It all starts with development. If they contributed some time and money to developing a professional women's league, the league would (hopefully) become somewhat successful. This success would contribute higher salaries to the players. Higher salaries = "Living wage"
- PhillySportsGuy

Salaries from where though? The NWHL?

I know if there were a pro womens team in philly. It would have my support more so than the flyers, because they need it and I'm not paying the ridiculous prices for NHL games and everything that goes with it. I'd be down there with my daughter all the time, all over it.
- Just5

Exactly. It's not like they're asking for NHL level salaries. A league where players are making $50k+ per year is fine. It gives them a chance to develop while also making a living wage.

Salaries from where though? The NWHL?
- jak521

Yes, but they need money to help develop the league. USA Hockey gives money to men's programs, so why wouldn't they contribute to a professional Women's program?

Exactly. It's not like they're asking for NHL level salaries. A league where players are making $50k+ per year is fine. It gives them a chance to develop while also making a living wage.
- PhillySportsGuy

You mean something like

http://nwslsoccer.com/

You mean something like

http://nwslsoccer.com/
- dragonoffrost

The soccer pay structure is still pretty (frank)ed up, but the players good enough to play for the women's national team are all making enough to live comfortably and continue playing soccer without having to get a second job.


The underlying problem is the lack of support. I think it will begin to change and women's sports will become more popular. While sexism runs rampant in every generation, I feel there's less of it in younger generations.

New blog
- SuperSchennBros

Bill's name is on Paul Stewart's new blog. Weird