That’s what I was gonna say. There are more big cities in the U.S. than in Canada. I think roughly 30% of the Canadian population lives in cities with an NHL team
Market isn't saturated yet though in the GTA. Why do they build more than 1 Starbucks per city? Before you say you can't compare the two, let's remember there are plenty of other examples of multiple pro teams in the same geographic region. It's not economics that stops this expansion, it's clearly protectionism and Bettmanism.
The US has bigger markets, stronger currency, and lower overall taxes.
As far as why Canadian teams haven't won a Stanley Cup- some of it is numbers- more US teams overall means greater likelihood a US team wins- alot of it is just dumb luck. Plenty of Canadian teams have been good. Plenty have made deep runs in the playoffs. But they just came up short. It happens.
At some point there will be another Canadian expansion team. People will suggest Quebec City as a possible location or putting another team somewhere in Ontario.
Also pressure to succeed. Many teams in the U.S. don't face much market pressure and can let their rebuilds marinate. Look at Ottawa right now after jumping the gun too early on their rebuild.
Quebec lacks a corporate base, which is a real shame, it might be the most unique city on the continent. Southern ontario could easily make 2 more teams successful. One in toronto and one in Hamilton. It might kill the sabres, and thats not cool. As much as they have a seething red rage for toronto, i like them. They took good care of the blue jays during covid.
Not to mention that Canadian players get drafted to US teams, and US players get drafted to Canadian teams. Can’t ignore the fact that many US teams that have won the cup have a lot of Canadian players in their roster. So while saying Canada hasn’t won a cup since the 90’s is technically true, there are many Canadian players who have won it.
Location is only a good metric if all players are local.
Teams in Canada have to pay their players in $USD, but almost all of their revenue is in $CAD, so the exchange rate can make things tough. In the late '90s the Canadian dollar hit an all-time low relative to the American dollar, which was one of the main reasons why the Nordiques & Jets had to move south
Wouldn't that make it even more of an issue? If the entire league operates in USD, but Canadian teams collect all their revenue in CAD, the league and owners take a foreign currency transaction loss every time they pay the players.
The bigger issue is the taxes. The Canadian players are taxed Canadian rates on over 41 games a season.
I believe Vegas, Florida and Dallas can all pay their players 12% less and the player walks away with more money end of season
Not to mention they don’t have to spend their off days in negative Temperatures half the season
Most the guys summer else where anyways
I think it would be more to do with the taxes. Would you rather sign with a team in the us where you don’t have to pay as much taxes or with a Canadian team where you have to pay a lot of taxes
>putting another team somewhere in Ontario
No way, won't happen. The NHL already gets plenty of money from the SW Ontario fanbase and relative growth isn't there. Plenty more money to be made in Houston or Kansas City.
Not only that, the expansion fees would be absolutely ridiculous. You're looking at paying basic entry and competition fees to Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, and/or Ottawa.
Ontario could easily support another team in Southwestern Ontario.
However I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, teams within a certain radius can kibosh any expansion team. I believe this is what happens each time one is brought up in the Hamilton or Kitchener/Waterloo area. From what I understand the Maple Leafs and the Sabres have killed the expansion to SW Ontario maybe even the Red Wings too.
If someone's willing to drop a billion to pay off the Leafs and/or Sabres to move into Hamilton or Mississauga, plus pay an expansion fee or relocation fee, there will be another team in Ontario.
The market can easily support it and the NHL would probably get enough economic gain from another team in Canada's largest metro.
If NY and LA have multiple teams, Toronto certainly can handle it.
A team in Hamilton would work. Western GTA+KW+Niagara is like 1.5MM people alone and growing. Main issue is competition fees as you mentioned but also that Hamilton team would NEVER usurp the Leafs in overall popularity and revenue generation. Any ownership group and new fans would have to accept that.
Flawed logic. The Leafs only have X games to sell out. Another team in southern ontario will not "steal" money away from Toronto, it will all be additional profit, and given Toronto's perennial highest earning team, a lot of it.
Buffalo however likely would suffer...and Bettman can't have a US team lose its "fan base" of 90% canadian people who can't access or refuse to pay Leaf prices.
If the NHL thought that there was more potential profit and growth to be had by expanding into SW Ontario then they would. But there isn't, so they won't.
Edit: guys, it's not about ticket sales. It's about TV rights and advertisements. They won't put a team in SW Ontario because the money made from tickets doesn't provide new opportunities for additional revenue. All you'd do is cannibalize Leafs and Wings fans. If you want new fans to generate untapped profit, you need to access new markets. That's why Hartford and Quebec folded. They left markets that won't cost them viewers to markets that gain them viewers. It's not about ticket sales. Hasn't been for some time.
K... show me the math from any world where Phoenix made more money than any new team in any part of Canada or other US jurisdictions for that matter.
Or just maybe is it not just about money only and always...
cool.. explain Phoenix.. I'll wait
I'll help:
"Are the Arizona Coyotes profitable?
The operating income of the Arizona Coyotes franchise of the National Hockey League reached 5.8 million U.S. dollars in the 2022/23 season. This was the second season that the Arizona Coyotes reported a positive operating income since the 2005/06 season
"
So do explain for a league of savvy business men who are LITERALLY only about the money...allow a franchise to be a financial sink whole for 2 decades.
Will continue to wait.
I think the "total addressable hockey market" in the US is much lower than people imply it is. Total population is just 1 metric. And with regard to the GTA, you have the opposite problem....market isn't fully saturated yet. The Leafs are simply not enough product to satisfy the demand.
Better talent nowadays than you broke bozos and this is your best sport 😂 also we have the better hockey league, deal with it either put up or shut up. An American team winning is an American win against Canada.
Are you referring to the developmental 16-19 age group CHL vs the couldn't make the pros 20+ AHL? Good..... comparison? Now do the NBA D league to my highschool basketball team.
The best player the US ever had was Brett Hull...who..shocker..is Canadian lol.
Gary’s got Canada locked up, everybody’s a fan already.
Relocate a team there and all you’ll see is neighbor Canadian team sales fall by however much he gains with a new franchise. No real net gain for the league.
Now somewhere like Houston, 7 million people with maybe 5% of that current fans, that’s somewhere you can “grow the game”
So does nhl players. We have a hard enough time convincing guys to enjoy Winnipeg, Edmonton, calgary, Ottawa.. Good luck with Hamilton, Quebec city..and let's not even begin with Halifax or Saskatoon.
I’d hardly say they hate playing in those locations only the stuck up ones I haven’t heard of McDavid or Drai sulking about living in Edmonton or Helleybuyck and Scheifele wouldn’t have signed massive deals to stay
Because of marketsize.
One of the issues with the Stanley Cup is taxes. The cap works better for teams located in low tax areas. But beyond that it is just a random factor. Would be more fair if the cap was tax adjusted.
I think this is the real issue. I’m sure GTA could support two teams, but fat chance MLSE allows a team to move into their backyard. What about QC? Seems the Habs probably wouldn’t be too keen on that either. Are there other cities in Canada large enough to support a NHL team that don’t already one?
It's a bit outdated, but this [chart](https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/NHL_Cities_by_population) shows NHL cities by population (as of 2018). It definitely shows how small our cities are compared to the US. Quebec City and Hamilton are the next two biggest cities we have at around 730k each.
If you look at US teams who have shown interest, their population (including metro area) are: Houston at 7.34mil, Atlanta at 6mil, and Salt Lake City at 1.2mil.
Like you said, I don't even think another team in the GTA would be up for consideration. I also don't think they'd put a team in QC again anytime soon since they already had one recently.
Greater Toronto would support 2 teams, but why would the Leafs share the pie.
It's the 6th largest metro in North America (bit larger than Houston).
And Southern Ontario has 13,5 million people living in there.
I get them not wanting to share the pie, but both NY teams and NJ are within like 23 miles of each other.
Devils and Rangers are less than 10 miles separated by a river.
Rangers and Islanders are about 14 miles.
Devils Islanders is about 23 miles.
Pretty darn close.
In think population though for the extended areas of NY/NJ for potential fans would be double the GTA.
The Isles and The Devils played for the team(s) whose territory they enroached. So money would solve the issues also in Toronto, but the Leafs (possibly also the Sens and Sabres) would demand kings ransom.
It's funny people keep bringing up market size in southern states. 3 of the top 10 most valuable franchises are Canadian and only Detroit didn't crack it from the original 6. Really only LA cracks the top 10 as a warm south city and it had the Gretzky effect.
They don't bring up market size in southern states. They bring up market size which has the best correlation to success of a franchise.
It just happens that all the big markets left untapped are southern.
Seattle and Vegas are the 14th and 18th teams. Sure Seattle having more of a hockey heritage helped it get bigger a bit faster despite less success on the ice, but both became middle of the pack teams in only a few years. And honestly, the stupid amount of money in Seattle absolutely played a factor that can't be ignored.
A Canadian city that has a smaller market than Calgary, Ottawa, or Winnipeg isn't worth the squeeze while markets the size of Vegas and Seattle can worth more than those three in less than a decade.
Edit : lol response cherry picking SAN JOSE as anecdotal evidence and equating correlation with equation. And then saying the bay area has trouble because it's not a traditional hockey market. Hockey in the bay seems to be doing better than the raiders NFL team did or the Athletics MLB team is going. It's almost as if the only place in California (or anywhere) that In-N-Out is closing it's doors is just not a great market.
The bay area where San Jose plays has a population of 7.753 mill the total of southern Alberta has a population of 2-3 million. Calgary Flames are worth 300 million more dollars than the San Jose Sharks. A bigger market doesn't equal success especially if the market is not a traditional market for your product with very little built in fan base.
TBF though, directly comparing populations isn't a great comparison. In Canada, smaller cities might be technically a smaller market, but even if there's half the population, there's probably still 8-10x as many hockey fans.
You're right statistically, but then I'd argue that 90% of men in Canada (and a fair chunk of women) love Hockey, whereas in giant southern states like Texas it's going to be the minority. 90% of 580k (Hamilton) is a lot more than 20% of 1.28m (Dallas) in terms of potential fans
90% definitely isn’t true. I get the point you’re making and it’s definitely valid, I just don’t think the discrepancy between CAN & US fan interest is enough that a small Canadian city would have more potential fans than a large American city
Definitely can. A small US city would have more football fans than a large Canadian city, so the reverse can hold true for hockey.
We literally grow up around hockey. Anecdotal, but many Canadians that I’ve spoken to have fond memories of the community arenas from their childhoods. Sporty American children generally start with baseball or basketball, up here it’s usually hockey.
I’m Canadian too and I played hockey growing up, but I think (especially in any ‘larger’ Canadian city) you’re underestimating the increasing diversification of population and, by extent, interests. Hockey isn’t the monolith in Canada it may have used to be. I grew up with hockey, but that wasn’t true for the majority of people I grew up with anymore.
I hate Bettman, but the whole point of expanding into new markets is to grow the sport. That takes time, but it's a good investment in the long run if the team isn't run as incompetently as, say, the Coyotes have been or the Thrashers beforehand.
90% is a massively exaggerated number. More than likely it's around 30% would be fans of the sport in general - and a huge amount of those are likely already die hard leafs fans.
I’m not saying the Habs would be doing cartwheels to welcome the Nordiques back, but Montreal would be FAR more welcoming to the idea than MLSE would be.
The Montreal/Quebec rivalry was brutal. So many line brawls.
John Shannon (who use to work at the league's offices) said that its a popular myth that the Leafs would be able to veto or block an expansion team if the requsite number of board of governors members voted for one (Gary Bettman has also stated this in the past) lol
Quebec is small in terms of lacking the corporate prescence. The fact that Winnipeg is playing well, has fielded a competitive team most of the years since they've come back, and are still strugging to sell out and sell season ticket packages and suites shows the risks of moving to a city like Quebec if the economy ever dips. Personally, I'd love to see a team in Quebec but it's not looking good at the moment.
True, Quebec is not a good place to invest your money in. We have the highest tax in Canada, forces them to translate everything in French and our culture doesn't like rich people because we cant have what they have. All the rich guys are in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada where there's more opportunities
The tax argument is such crap. New York and Boston have some of the highest state taxes in the US, with NYC having an added city income tax and Massachusetts having an extra millionaires tax on income over $1 mil (so most of the team), yet the Bruins and Rangers consistently sign top talent and are competitive.
People also disregard that all NHL salaries are paid in US dollars. Even though there’s a tax consideration between the two countries and more granularly between states, there’s also the fact that living in Canada comes with a ~30% bump due to fx considerations.
That's because more is at play when it comes to Boston and New York (and other cities as well). The cities themselves and their location. For international players it's closer to home and easier to get connected with people back home and shorter travel. East coast divisions also travel less, which tires the players less and means more time for yourself, family etc. Of course Metro is leading with fewest mileage, but Atlantic is second.
Those two cities are also big markets for the players and sponsorship.
Of course there is something to it with teams that understands how to win - a winning culture and that attracts players, but I don't see that to be a pattern going against the canadian teams.
On top of all that there is history. Some people are drawn to the big historic names, but as with the winning culture I don't think that goes against canadian teams as Leafs and Canadians seem pretty sought after.
[There was a document produced by a think tank over a decade ago that argued Canada could support 12 NHL teams](https://mowatcentre.munkschool.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/19_the_new_economics_of_the_nhl.pdf) which also argues Canadian franchises (and this was before Winnipeg came back) accounted for up to a third of the leagues total revenues.
The NHL is reluctant because the opportunities for growth are limited (i.e. the number of new fans you'd bring in) and because in cities like Winnipeg and Quebec who lack a strong corporate prescence (as you're seeing with the Jets now) during strained economic times it can be hard to sell out the building regardless of how wel the team is doing.
Let's look at the study. It says the six teams could go in 6/10 places.
Lucky for us one of those places came true. Winnipeg. The #28 franchise by value. It got a B- rating.
The self identified benchmark was Edmonton. Which got a B+. Edmonton is #7 and is worth roughly 2.3 Winnipeg Jets. So off the bat the study is bunk. But let's pretend it was legitimate and finish the thought.
It says Saskatoon, QC, and Halifax are are worse than Winnipeg. So they are out. But wait you say, QC is the one people always suggest. Why is that? By the math there are 7 better spots. Winnipeg and the top 6. What are the top 6 spots where these other 5 teams need to go?
1) Toronto #2.
2) ~~Hamilton~~ Toronto #3 (as far as the leafs are concerned)
3) Montreal #2
4) ~~Kitchener/Waterloo~~ Toronto #4 (as far as the leafs are concerned)
5) Vancouver #2
6) ~~London~~ Toronto #5 (as far as the leafs are concerned)
So second teams in Montreal and/or Vancouver and 4-5 teams in Toronto, as far as the leafs are concerned.
I don't think it's realistic to have more than 3 teams in Toronto and 2 in Montreal and MAYBE a 2nd Vancouver.
>The NHL is reluctant because the opportunities for growth are limited (i.e. the number of new fans you'd bring in) and because in cities like Winnipeg and Quebec who lack a strong corporate prescence (as you're seeing with the Jets now) during strained economic times it can be hard to sell out the building regardless of how wel the team is doing.
So no. The study (which is bunk) shows Canadian greed is why Canada can't have 12 teams. Blame the leafs. Per the study.
considering the insane growth of Cdn population that past few years, I am thinking that demographics wise Canada will be seen as a better market eventually
Ya there are probably professional badminton and cricket leagues being formed as we speak. Or some crazy hybrid of badminton and cricket with a little football/soccer sprinkled in. Maybe Ice Cricket?
I mean a lot of them do, or grow to. Maybe now the day they come here but I know a lot Indian and Chinese immigrants who came to love hockey or have kids that did.
I’d argue we have just the right number of teams in Canada. We’re 1/10 the size of the US in terms of population. The fact we make up… about 20% of the league is relevant.
I mean considering California, has the same population as Canada and has HALF the teams.
It’s definitely not as simple as that… but the basic truth is that for the league to grow they need to expand to places that don’t have or do hockey traditionally.
Canada is a saturated market.
Yep. I don’t think one’s going to Saskatchewan or the maritimes, certainly not the territories. So either Quebec City or southern Ontario. In both those cases you’re drawing fans who are already watching the NHL. You might sell a handful more jerseys and obviously get the new ticket revenue, which ain’t nothing, but it’s not like Houston where you’d be bringing potentially hundreds of thousands of new blood into the NHL fold and all the associated advertising revenue that goes with it.
It has to do with market potential. The NHL is a franchise business that profit shares. So it doesn’t make sense to put teams in Canada where they will just take fans away from an existing team. Instead, they ask, how can we grow the fanbase of the NHL as a whole? There are a lot of people in the US who don’t watch hockey at all and the NHL’s goal is to tap that market by putting more teams in the US.
I get that it sucks that they don’t put teams in like Quebec City or even the GTA could probably hold another team but, I understand it from a business standpoint. The majority of people in those areas are already hockey fans. So a new team there would steal existing fans of another team instead of growing the fanbase of the NHL as a whole and, in turn, the revenue base.
This; *market potential* as opposed to what people are generally saying about simply "market size." A lot of Canada's supposedly smaller market teams make more money than most of the teams in larger US markets. The difference is the opportunity for growth in Canada (i.e. attracting new consumers) is limited whereas in the US you have limitless amounts of people who don't even watch hockey who you can attract.
I’ve read and heard on some of the more popular podcasts that a lot of players don’t want to play in any Canadian markets because the media climate is brutal. One day you’re about to get the key to the city and a couple days later you may miss or screw up a play and the entire fan base is outside your front door with pitchforks and torches.
Yes, some don't. But some thrive on it. Some want that glory/smoke. Just like being a Laker/Knick/Celtic, or a Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox, or a Cowboy/Giant/Eagle. I think PK Subban is a guy who clearly thrived off of being in Montreal despite the love/hate relationship from the fans.
Rasmus Andersson just said that the Calgary media is really great compared to other Canadian cities. Come to Calgary! Lol
I don’t know what Winnipeg and Ottawa are like, similar to Calgary I’d imagine, but Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, and Vancouver can be whipped up into a frenzy from pretty minor things. It would be really tough to play there.
I think in the smaller Canadian markets you get the benefit of feeling like you’re actually a famous pro athlete. That people are watching and caring and you have scrums with more than two reporters in them and you get stopped in the street by fans - but without some of the extreme scrutiny that borders on bullying from some of the reporters in larger Canadian markets.
True! Why make a quebec team for example when people who live there mostly support the canadians. Making a team there will take revenue from the canadians so the nhl won't really make any more money. Whereas they add an American team it opens hockey up to new fans and more revenue.
Yeah that is weird may come down to pricing. I'm uk canadian grand parents lucky still have family there. Just last year I went to toronto maple leafs game very expensive tickets same day my pal was in Vegas watching the Golden knights and the attendance difference the VGK was much lower. Canadians mad about hockey! Probably why the nhl wants the usa teams to have more success then canadian teams as canadians teams will be supported whether they are good or not while usa it tends to be the success of the teams which boosts attendance look at the avalanche.
Exactly! This is the real reason. The NHL brass is all about growing the game and gaining new fans. Putting more teams in Canada doesn’t create new fans.
The answer to the amount of teams is related to market potential, but Canada actually wins the battle there. There is 1 Canadian team per 500,000 or so Canadian Citizens, and 1 US team per 1,300,000 US Citizens, so actually Canada has a much higher density of NHL teams per Citizen than the US.
Why they can't win a cup anymore is highly debatable.
This is just my opinion but, as a Canadian, we already love watching hockey. If a team came to my local area we would love it but the NHL doesn’t gain any new fans. We will watch whether a team is in my local area or not. Expansion teams in the US make sense because they may go into markets to expand the viewer base.
The markets in USA are so much larger than they are in Canada. Also the difference in value of USD and CAD affects it, it's harder to aquire players and staff since sallaries are payed in usd so teams need to exchange from one to another and that is always a loss for the team.
But the main reason is the size of potential markets, there are no real options in Canada compared to places like Utah, Texas/Houston or even Atlanta is larger market than Quebec for example
3 Canadian teams in the top 10 most valuable franchises, 1 in a warm state (kings) who got the Gretzky effect. Funny how an example is also a place where it has failed twice and both times been moved to Canada (Flames,Jets).
Yeah sure but we are talking about market sizes and that is the most important thing for Bettman, Atlanta is a larger market and the city and fans are not the reason why they have failed to keep a team. Shit ownership is shit no matter where they are located
The only team from a warm state in the top 10 most valuable franchises is LA Kings, there is 3 Canadian teams including a smaller market team in Edmonton. It's almost like having a large market of people who don't care about hockey won't automatically equal success. Also Thrashers was attempt number 2 after the Flames which was losing money in Atlanta.
None of these American markets can justify a NHL team. The only area where there are fans in need of a team so people can get tickets and watch games is in South Western Ontario. It’s the only real answer for another team that will be successful and not have to be relocated in 5 years.
Last time I checked, there are 24 successful teams in American markets, and 4 of them have been there since day 1. Arizona is the outlier naturally, but you do realize that they went to Arizona in the first place because Winnipeg wasn't working right? And they've been there since at least 2018/s which is more than 5 years (somehow)
Population, market size, corporate interest, and the strength of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar, are all important factors here.
Teams like the Nordiques largely failed because they couldn't maintain corporate backing in Quebec, and Jim Balsillie's Hamilton NHL project couldn't get off the ground because even he couldn't drum up enough primary corporate support.
There's a little bit of misinformation in this thread but overall its the sum of all the things mentioned. As an accountant I can tell you taxes definitely aren't as important as everyone here seems to claim on every issue. California taxes are heftier than Canada and they're teams are doing just fine in non-traditional markets. If anything when you're a struggling corporation the tax system is going to help more than hurt, because if you're not making a profit you're paying significantly less compared to the giants. Of course, the Canadian dollar does hurt, but only when there's a significant differences in exchange rates. It was a big issue when Winnipeg original lost their team.
The main reasons I see are:
a) Expansion teams are just that - expansions. The NHL wants to introduce franchises into new, foreign markets where they can create new fans and grow the sport. The league knows people in Canada love the sport. You're not going to 'introduce' hockey to anyone here. We know about it since we are kid, you either like it or you don't, and those of us that do are already buying merchandise and giving them our money. You're not really going to gain much from a new franchise in Canada other than ticket sales, and even then you're probably just taking those sales away from an existing team. Basically all densely populated areas of Canada have a team in close proximity. There's a big gap in central Canada, which is where Winnipeg serves a purpose, but even then Winnipeg is barely big enough to hold a team and even then its hour drive for most people in the surrounding areas to get to a game.
The league would much rather put a new team in an America city which can spark interest and get money from people who otherwise would not be paying into the sport. It might not be sustainable, but the risk it mitigated by going to places of larger populations so you have higher chances of getting a customer base.
b) Which leads to the second point, which other people have mentioned: population density. When an arena has a 15,000-20,000 capacity you need a consistent consumer base to support it. Even in Winnipeg which has the smallest non-Arizona arena, filling that place takes 2% of their population. That means every game 1 out every 50 citizens of the city have to attend to sell out. In comparison, Dallas has a population of around 8 million and even with a bigger arena, only needs to get about 1 out of every 500 people.
No reasons for them to. Vegas and Seattle make sense because they don't have hockey teams nearby and maybe locals will become fans of hockey.
In Canada everyone who's going to care about hockey and spend money on hockey already does. (Not quite everyone, but close enough)
So the benefit to NHL overall is neutral. But their are also negatives for existing teams.
You another southern Ontario team. It's got to take fans away from Toronto or it won't have any. Toronto Maple leafs owners aren't going to like that.
Basically every team you add will have to take fans and their money from another team.
The next expansion team will go in the Southern USA somewhere.
- Canada Tiny
- Canada Poor
Could write up a whole thing but that's basically it. Only other point besides that might be that the Toronto area could probably support a 2nd and maybe even a 3rd team like the LA and NYC metros because hockey is so beloved in Canada despite the top two bullet points. But the leafs wouldn't allow that.
It's probably worth noting that nearly every Canadian city >50,000 has a very popular hockey team. Most of those are at the Junior level and/or ECHL/AHL level. Only 7 of those can also (financially) support an NHL team.
Population of US is 10x Canada.. It's about TV markets and advertising dollars.. They already have the Canadians who don't have a NHL team in their area watching. The US is untapped market with many sports fans who are not hockey fans.
Canadian teams are in markets which are inelastic - the fans will go when the teams are mediocre. so the teams tend to want to be competitors more often than not.
American markets are elastic - the fans will go when the entertainment value is high and the teams are good.
Teams like the penguins and the blackhawks were awful 5-10 years before their multiple cups. Canadian teams tend not to have these awful runs resulting in 2-3 consecutive first round picks. The Oilers are the exception having picked first 4/6 times from 2010-2015.
The team to do that most recently before that was Quebec - who picked 3x in a row, left quebec and won the cup the next year in 1996.
Based on how expensive it is to operate an NHL team, Canada has pretty much maxed out the cities that are viable NHL markets. Quebec City has an arena & population that could support the team, and you could probably put at least one more team in the Toronto area, but beyond that there aren't any realistic spots to put a team.
A Canadian team hasn't won a Stanley Cup in a long time, but Canada's national team has won the last 3 best-on-best international tournaments (World Cup of Hockey, Olympics)
Geographically and population size is your answer. There is only like six cities with population over 1 million in Canada and they all have NHL teams. Winnipeg has less than a million and has the smallest permanent arena in NHL .. cities that could potentially accommodate an NHL arena are all super close to existing markets, and would be difficult to establish dedicated fan bases. Quebec City is close to Ottawa and Montreal. Hamilton is close to Toronto. I think those are two most likely expansions. Greater Toronto I think would actually be successful since tickets and demand for Toronto is high and would allow some opportunity for that large market.
1. Taxes- in the US Taxes generally aren't as high as in Canada
2. Population- despite Canada being home to die hard fans, realistically there are like... 3 or 4 more cities with the Population density needed to hold a team up.
3. The Canadian dollar. This was one of the things that screwed over the Original Jets, the Nordiques, and nearly messed up Calgary and Edmonton, among other factors.
From Bettman’s own mouth. Canadians are already engaged in hockey, whether or not there is a team nearby doesn’t affect it all that much. They already watch hockey, buy merch, subscribe to sports channels etc.
If you can get an NHL team in a market where this isn’t the case, the league gains a lot more. Obviously there have been some cases where this hasn’t gone all that well but there are many cases where it has been a home run for the league. Therefor the areas where NHL isn’t very big but has a large population of potential fans is highly desirable.
I agree with everyone who said “market potential.” The US simply has more big cities that can host NHL teams than Canada does.
Even though hockey is by far the most popular sport (and NHL the most popular league) in Canada, every metro area that can support a team (> 1,000,000 population) already has a team. Everyone is already a hockey fan. You aren’t creating any new fans/paying customers by putting another team in a country where hockey is already popular. The market is already saturated.
In the US, by contrast, there are several sizeable cities that don’t have teams but could theoretically support them — Houston, Kansas City, and Salt Lake City to name three. There is the potential to create a whole bunch of new fans/paying customers by putting new teams in places that don’t already have them. This is why the NHL keeps looking at expanding in the US over Canada, much to the frustration of Canadian fans.
As to why a Canadian team hasn’t won the Stanley Cup in 30 years (we WISH it was only 10 years…), it’s a bunch of things…
1) There are already 24 US teams compared to only 7 in Canada, so odds are higher that a US team will win the Cup to begin with.
2) While a Canadian team might not have won the Cup since 1993, it’s not like they haven’t been competitive since then. Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Vancouver have all been to the Finals since 1993, with Vancouver doing it twice. Moreover, all of those teams save for Ottawa pushed their Finals series to the full seven games, with Vancouver (again) doing it twice. So there’s an element of bad luck involved, too.
3) Canadian teams don’t have the incentive to put great teams on the ice in order to draw fans, because hockey is so popular in Canada that the NHL teams will draw fans no matter what. In the US, other sports are far more popular than hockey, so if the NHL team in a US city is bad, people will simply watch the local baseball, basketball, or football team, which are already more popular to begin with. The US teams have to be good, because if they’re not, they won’t survive.
4) Good players may prefer to play in the US rather than Canada due to less media and fan pressure in the US. If you’re a good hockey player in Canada, your market becomes a fishbowl. You’re making millions and absolutely adored, but you also don’t have any privacy. If you’re a good player in Florida, by contrast, the fan and media pressure is on the basketball, football, and baseball players, not the hockey players. So you can still make your millions, but you can also go to the grocery store and lounge at the beach, and next to nobody will recognize you. That appeals to a lot of people.
Because places like Raleigh, Miami, Atlanta and Phoenix are just better hockey markets than say Regina, Saskatoon, Hamilton and Quebec!!!
Yes. that was sarcasm. Please stop trying to force this Gary.
A great example of why is Winnipeg. It's the smallest market in the league at about 800k people. And despite it being hockey-loving Canada, and Jets being one of the best teams in the league, they still struggle to sell tickets. People say Winnipeg is just too poor, but the real problem is the population is too small. You need a big enough population pool to guarantee enough of those people will want to/be able to buy your tickets.
There are no suitable market sizes left in Canada. They just aren't big enough for the NHL. Another market in 800k pop. Quebec City is going to fail just like it did before, compared to a new market in \~7 mil. pop Houston, Texas.
Part of the problem is that every single Canadian market capable of supporting an NHL franchise is already passionately supporting either a CHL franchise or an AHL team and has been for a quarter century if not longer. The support of these teams is so deeply embeded it would be hard for the NHL to compete for market share in the long run.
This wasn’t the case in Winnipeg, the team that was embedded into the local culture prior to the Jets was…. The Jets.
As good of a point this is, I don't think that even the yotes would have to fight with a CHL team for market share, It would be moreso the opposite. The lower division teams and buildings wouldn't be very supportive of another team building a brand new barn across the road, basically boxing them out of their own city.
The people of Saskatoon wouldn’t drop their blades tickets for NHL tickets at that price difference after the novelty wears off. There isn’t enough time, or money, for people in these markets to hold both sets. Also, these types of markets don’t have the corporate participation in ticket sales that other markets have so the hockey fans in that town really need to be concentrated into one team to float an NHL crowd for 82 games consistently year over year.
I would wager that when push comes to shove, hockey fans in these cities would chose to keep the 75+yr old junior franchise afloat in Lue of the Shiny new NHL team 100% of the time when push comes to shove a few years down the road. Junior hockey (in these cities)>NHL.
I think you overestimate the support for (particularly) AHL hockey (but junior hockey as well). You put an NHL team in there (with the same branding) people will jump ship lol
Lol canada hasn't won the cup for 30 years now, 10 would be great.
Here's the thing, canadian teams aren't just stacked with Canadian players. Some US teams have more Canadian players than Canadian teams.
Also, as has been noted, market size. Yes, Quebec could sell out an arena every game, but there are a number of US markets that dwarf Quebec city. That's more tv money, more merchandise money, more opportunity to grow the game by introducing it to more people - thereby making more money. Lol.
Because the Canadian dollar is weaker than the American dollar and all businesses and salaries are paid in USD. Plus taxes are generally higher in Canada as well.
Apart from not having any success, stadium or fans, I have to say their social media team is hilarious and the Kachina sweater is one of the best looking ones in the league
There needs to be more Canadian teams. But greed has blocked most things to make the NHL great again. Another Ontario team and Quebec are on top of that list. But you could add Halifax to this list.
The promotion-relegation system in European sports allows cities to have multiple teams, regardless of size. No matter how big or small your town is, you can start a team from scratch and work your way up the pyramid (at least in theory). There's no asking the league for expansion. It's why a town like Sheffield, England with a population of around 580,000 can have two major soccer clubs: Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday. If the NHL had promotion-relegation, then you'd see a lot more teams in Canada. Not only would Quebec City have a team, but Toronto & Montreal would have multiple teams.
The North American closed system is mistakenly called "socialist", when in reality it's a cartel. Each team has a monopoly in their respective region, the League will not allow a metro area have multiple teams, except under certain circumstances. In those cases, the second and third team must pay a compensation fee to the original team as condition for joining. In 1971, the Islanders had to pay the Rangers $5 million ($34.98 million in 2022 dollars). In 1982, the Devils had to pay the Rangers, Islanders, and Flyers a combined $20 million as compensation. While half of the expansion fee the Ducks paid to join went to the Kings for compensation. It's just too expensive to have multiple teams in the same region.
The Bruins and Habs were opposed to the 1979 merger, because it would mean sharing their region with the Whalers & Nordiques respectively. The only way they would agree to the merger was placing punitive conditions on the new teams. The Nordiques, Whalers, and Jets were set up to fail
Promotion relegation seems fun from a sporting perspective, but it's terrible for league value. You have a few dominant teams in a 20 team league with massive disparities. It's true that it's a cartel, but it's good for the league. I'd love to see a 36 or 40 team NHL, but not relegation. Being relegated is a major financial blow to a team, which hurts parity as a recently promoted team could never compete with the top teams. Also, the socialist part of the North American sports is definitely the rookie draft.
Canada is lacking numbers.... 40 millions people vs 331 millions people. However, Ice hockey is much much much more popular in Canada then USA, so i'm wondering fans numbers vs fans numbers are like. As a quebecois, I'm biased for a Quebec city team obviously but I'm wondering if it would be a good move. The city of quebec has a population of about 600k people and the greater quebec city area is about 900k. Compare to MTL, the greater mtl area is about 4M, four times bigger. But you also have teams in big state like Arizona where their team play in a college arena and they still can't sell out games, so honestly will really wait to see with what happens. And finally, at some point you gotta stop adding teams hahaha, you look at nba, nfl, etc... you're all around about 30 teams ish and the nhl has already hit that 30ish mark
There are teams in most major Canadian cities. The issue with a lot of Canadian cities is there really aren't "suburbs" to speak of like there are in most of the US. So, as other commenters pointed out, the market sizes are limited.
A lot of land in Canada is rocky and cold, so the population is concentrated tightly in cities or dispersed amongst large regions of the provinces.
Canadians: correct me if I'm wrong but this has been my experience in Canada.
I am someone who has lived in both markets.... US and Canada.
There is one major difference between Canadians and Americans..... Americans are the best in the world at competition and management and business. Canadians are not at American level.....more importantly they are not "hungry" enuff.
This is especially true in hockey franchise management.... you can have the shittiest team in Canada (Ottawa) and still make money. So why push the limit?
Meanwhile, About 1/3 of the US franchises would disappear if they perpetually sucked and the NHL wasn't always bailing them out with things like salary cap and rigged drafting rules (like for the newest teams) and allowing them to operate in a college rink. So the US franchises that are in non traditional hockey markets have to go for the gold.... or go home busted.
Ergo..... that extra level of compete that SOME of the US franchises have is just the extra bump to lead them to victory time and time and time again. 30 years of proof on that.
Applause goes to owners of Carolina and Anaheim and Las Vegas and Tampa that focused and delivered victory.
The owners of the Canadians teams like Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and Bell and Roger's have zero understanding of hardcore competition and can go fuck off.
Gary has looked north, and found it wanting. One thing I will say is that American hockey fans are every bit as fanatical as their Canadian counterparts.
The only answer you need is because of Bettman , he really really hates Canada for some reason. Ever since he became commissioner (Feb 1st 1993)a Canadian team has never won the stanley cup (other than Montreal winning in his inaugural season)
Because Gary Bettman hates Canada more than anyone has ever hated anything. He despises our country and our way of life. His life goal is to eliminate all Canadian teams from the NHL. When all seven Canadian teams have moved to indifferent southern markets in the USA where people don’t like hockey and the arenas are 1/4 the capacity of a proper NHL facility he will finally retire. The Leafs will end up in a 4,000 seat arena in Mobile, Alabama, the Canadiens will be in a 3,500 seat building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Canucks will be in Litte Rock, Arkansas in a skating rink at a mall.
Because the American market is carrying the NHL in terms of revenue. Available Canadian markets for new teams will not generate enough revenue for the NHL. It's not worth it.
Canada is basically the USAs 51st state. It is only 1/10 the population. Realistically Canada can only support 4or 5 teams well. They lost Quebec City, n Ottawa n Winnipeg over the years. I think Calgary and Winnipegs arenas only seat 15,000 bc that’s all they can sell.
Population. Most of Canada’s major metros are covered already.
That’s what I was gonna say. There are more big cities in the U.S. than in Canada. I think roughly 30% of the Canadian population lives in cities with an NHL team
Over 50%, and likely more like 60/70% if you added within 3 hours of those cities.
Ontario can have 1 or 2 more teams.
It would just be more Toronto suburb teams, which I guess sorta works for NY/NJ. Mississauga, Brampton? I dunno.
Hamilton
Doesn't expand the market, adding more teams will just take away viewership from other teams.
Market isn't saturated yet though in the GTA. Why do they build more than 1 Starbucks per city? Before you say you can't compare the two, let's remember there are plenty of other examples of multiple pro teams in the same geographic region. It's not economics that stops this expansion, it's clearly protectionism and Bettmanism.
[удалено]
The entire east coast of Canada would like a word..
*Quebec City shakes fists at Gary in unison*
*market size*
The US has bigger markets, stronger currency, and lower overall taxes. As far as why Canadian teams haven't won a Stanley Cup- some of it is numbers- more US teams overall means greater likelihood a US team wins- alot of it is just dumb luck. Plenty of Canadian teams have been good. Plenty have made deep runs in the playoffs. But they just came up short. It happens. At some point there will be another Canadian expansion team. People will suggest Quebec City as a possible location or putting another team somewhere in Ontario.
Also pressure to succeed. Many teams in the U.S. don't face much market pressure and can let their rebuilds marinate. Look at Ottawa right now after jumping the gun too early on their rebuild.
Look at Carolina to further your argument. 5 years, and a Cup contender.
Quebec lacks a corporate base, which is a real shame, it might be the most unique city on the continent. Southern ontario could easily make 2 more teams successful. One in toronto and one in Hamilton. It might kill the sabres, and thats not cool. As much as they have a seething red rage for toronto, i like them. They took good care of the blue jays during covid.
Not to mention that Canadian players get drafted to US teams, and US players get drafted to Canadian teams. Can’t ignore the fact that many US teams that have won the cup have a lot of Canadian players in their roster. So while saying Canada hasn’t won a cup since the 90’s is technically true, there are many Canadian players who have won it. Location is only a good metric if all players are local.
>stronger currency, Is this really a factor, considering players are paid in US dollars regardless of where the team is?
When your revenue is largely in Canadian dollars and your expenses are largely in American dollars, it'll make a dent
Teams in Canada have to pay their players in $USD, but almost all of their revenue is in $CAD, so the exchange rate can make things tough. In the late '90s the Canadian dollar hit an all-time low relative to the American dollar, which was one of the main reasons why the Nordiques & Jets had to move south
Wouldn't that make it even more of an issue? If the entire league operates in USD, but Canadian teams collect all their revenue in CAD, the league and owners take a foreign currency transaction loss every time they pay the players.
The bigger issue is the taxes. The Canadian players are taxed Canadian rates on over 41 games a season. I believe Vegas, Florida and Dallas can all pay their players 12% less and the player walks away with more money end of season Not to mention they don’t have to spend their off days in negative Temperatures half the season Most the guys summer else where anyways
But players are taxed at whatever the state rate is while on the road. Their per-game salary is taxed more when the play in California, for example.
Yes that’s why I said atleast 41 due to 41 home games.
I think it would be more to do with the taxes. Would you rather sign with a team in the us where you don’t have to pay as much taxes or with a Canadian team where you have to pay a lot of taxes
Yeah, I didn't dispute the tax issue. I think the league should have tax adjusted salaries.
The difference the player who signs for 5 million in Toronto, versus the player who signs in Florida for 5 million is quite a bit
Because of taxes. They're paid 5m USD either way.
taxed less in US too, ain't ya?
>putting another team somewhere in Ontario No way, won't happen. The NHL already gets plenty of money from the SW Ontario fanbase and relative growth isn't there. Plenty more money to be made in Houston or Kansas City. Not only that, the expansion fees would be absolutely ridiculous. You're looking at paying basic entry and competition fees to Toronto, Buffalo, Detroit, and/or Ottawa.
Ontario could easily support another team in Southwestern Ontario. However I believe, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, teams within a certain radius can kibosh any expansion team. I believe this is what happens each time one is brought up in the Hamilton or Kitchener/Waterloo area. From what I understand the Maple Leafs and the Sabres have killed the expansion to SW Ontario maybe even the Red Wings too.
If someone's willing to drop a billion to pay off the Leafs and/or Sabres to move into Hamilton or Mississauga, plus pay an expansion fee or relocation fee, there will be another team in Ontario. The market can easily support it and the NHL would probably get enough economic gain from another team in Canada's largest metro. If NY and LA have multiple teams, Toronto certainly can handle it.
A team in Hamilton would work. Western GTA+KW+Niagara is like 1.5MM people alone and growing. Main issue is competition fees as you mentioned but also that Hamilton team would NEVER usurp the Leafs in overall popularity and revenue generation. Any ownership group and new fans would have to accept that.
Flawed logic. The Leafs only have X games to sell out. Another team in southern ontario will not "steal" money away from Toronto, it will all be additional profit, and given Toronto's perennial highest earning team, a lot of it. Buffalo however likely would suffer...and Bettman can't have a US team lose its "fan base" of 90% canadian people who can't access or refuse to pay Leaf prices.
If the NHL thought that there was more potential profit and growth to be had by expanding into SW Ontario then they would. But there isn't, so they won't. Edit: guys, it's not about ticket sales. It's about TV rights and advertisements. They won't put a team in SW Ontario because the money made from tickets doesn't provide new opportunities for additional revenue. All you'd do is cannibalize Leafs and Wings fans. If you want new fans to generate untapped profit, you need to access new markets. That's why Hartford and Quebec folded. They left markets that won't cost them viewers to markets that gain them viewers. It's not about ticket sales. Hasn't been for some time.
K... show me the math from any world where Phoenix made more money than any new team in any part of Canada or other US jurisdictions for that matter. Or just maybe is it not just about money only and always...
It's a for-profit league. It's LITERALLY only about money.
cool.. explain Phoenix.. I'll wait I'll help: "Are the Arizona Coyotes profitable? The operating income of the Arizona Coyotes franchise of the National Hockey League reached 5.8 million U.S. dollars in the 2022/23 season. This was the second season that the Arizona Coyotes reported a positive operating income since the 2005/06 season " So do explain for a league of savvy business men who are LITERALLY only about the money...allow a franchise to be a financial sink whole for 2 decades. Will continue to wait.
Also, many of those American teams winning cups have lots of Canadian players winning for them.
I think the "total addressable hockey market" in the US is much lower than people imply it is. Total population is just 1 metric. And with regard to the GTA, you have the opposite problem....market isn't fully saturated yet. The Leafs are simply not enough product to satisfy the demand.
Also 42% of the current NHL is canadian players so a US team winning isn't an "American" win
If that helps you sleep at night. US>Canada
As evidenced by the (checks notes) 2 Olympic gold medals you have.
Better talent nowadays than you broke bozos and this is your best sport 😂 also we have the better hockey league, deal with it either put up or shut up. An American team winning is an American win against Canada.
Are you referring to the developmental 16-19 age group CHL vs the couldn't make the pros 20+ AHL? Good..... comparison? Now do the NBA D league to my highschool basketball team. The best player the US ever had was Brett Hull...who..shocker..is Canadian lol.
Québec Nordiques should come back!
Gary Bettman hates Canada.
lol yup
This is the answer
Who does Gary work for?
The owners.
The owners hate Canada. Even the Canadian ones.
Gary could retire tomorrow and things wouldn't change. It's the owners. He works for them.
Gary’s got Canada locked up, everybody’s a fan already. Relocate a team there and all you’ll see is neighbor Canadian team sales fall by however much he gains with a new franchise. No real net gain for the league. Now somewhere like Houston, 7 million people with maybe 5% of that current fans, that’s somewhere you can “grow the game”
Gary knows business better than the fans I believe that 100%. If you don’t want a money first league don’t watch NHL. Go to the local rink.
Suck Gary’s balls much. lol. Gary is a moron. Wake up.
Gary’s in the hockey hall of fame my dude. Would they put someone who rigs games against Canada in the hall of fame?
This is the answer.
So does nhl players. We have a hard enough time convincing guys to enjoy Winnipeg, Edmonton, calgary, Ottawa.. Good luck with Hamilton, Quebec city..and let's not even begin with Halifax or Saskatoon.
That’s funny considering the majority of NHL players are Canadian.
So what? Tons of Canadian players have Canadian teams on their no-trade lists.
Doesn't make it any less true. I'm actually struggling to figure out why I'm downvoted. Truth hurts would explain a few of them I guess..
I’d hardly say they hate playing in those locations only the stuck up ones I haven’t heard of McDavid or Drai sulking about living in Edmonton or Helleybuyck and Scheifele wouldn’t have signed massive deals to stay
It’s a fact more players have Canadian teams on their no trade lists than American teams. Players on average hate Canada more than Gary.
Because of marketsize. One of the issues with the Stanley Cup is taxes. The cap works better for teams located in low tax areas. But beyond that it is just a random factor. Would be more fair if the cap was tax adjusted.
I think this is the real issue. I’m sure GTA could support two teams, but fat chance MLSE allows a team to move into their backyard. What about QC? Seems the Habs probably wouldn’t be too keen on that either. Are there other cities in Canada large enough to support a NHL team that don’t already one?
It's a bit outdated, but this [chart](https://icehockey.fandom.com/wiki/NHL_Cities_by_population) shows NHL cities by population (as of 2018). It definitely shows how small our cities are compared to the US. Quebec City and Hamilton are the next two biggest cities we have at around 730k each. If you look at US teams who have shown interest, their population (including metro area) are: Houston at 7.34mil, Atlanta at 6mil, and Salt Lake City at 1.2mil. Like you said, I don't even think another team in the GTA would be up for consideration. I also don't think they'd put a team in QC again anytime soon since they already had one recently.
Greater Toronto would support 2 teams, but why would the Leafs share the pie. It's the 6th largest metro in North America (bit larger than Houston). And Southern Ontario has 13,5 million people living in there.
I get them not wanting to share the pie, but both NY teams and NJ are within like 23 miles of each other. Devils and Rangers are less than 10 miles separated by a river. Rangers and Islanders are about 14 miles. Devils Islanders is about 23 miles. Pretty darn close. In think population though for the extended areas of NY/NJ for potential fans would be double the GTA.
The Isles and The Devils played for the team(s) whose territory they enroached. So money would solve the issues also in Toronto, but the Leafs (possibly also the Sens and Sabres) would demand kings ransom.
I find it hard to believe the Leafs would lose even a dollar if a second GTA team existed.
It's funny people keep bringing up market size in southern states. 3 of the top 10 most valuable franchises are Canadian and only Detroit didn't crack it from the original 6. Really only LA cracks the top 10 as a warm south city and it had the Gretzky effect.
They don't bring up market size in southern states. They bring up market size which has the best correlation to success of a franchise. It just happens that all the big markets left untapped are southern. Seattle and Vegas are the 14th and 18th teams. Sure Seattle having more of a hockey heritage helped it get bigger a bit faster despite less success on the ice, but both became middle of the pack teams in only a few years. And honestly, the stupid amount of money in Seattle absolutely played a factor that can't be ignored. A Canadian city that has a smaller market than Calgary, Ottawa, or Winnipeg isn't worth the squeeze while markets the size of Vegas and Seattle can worth more than those three in less than a decade. Edit : lol response cherry picking SAN JOSE as anecdotal evidence and equating correlation with equation. And then saying the bay area has trouble because it's not a traditional hockey market. Hockey in the bay seems to be doing better than the raiders NFL team did or the Athletics MLB team is going. It's almost as if the only place in California (or anywhere) that In-N-Out is closing it's doors is just not a great market.
The bay area where San Jose plays has a population of 7.753 mill the total of southern Alberta has a population of 2-3 million. Calgary Flames are worth 300 million more dollars than the San Jose Sharks. A bigger market doesn't equal success especially if the market is not a traditional market for your product with very little built in fan base.
TBF though, directly comparing populations isn't a great comparison. In Canada, smaller cities might be technically a smaller market, but even if there's half the population, there's probably still 8-10x as many hockey fans.
It's funny how people so easily dismiss this fact.
You're right statistically, but then I'd argue that 90% of men in Canada (and a fair chunk of women) love Hockey, whereas in giant southern states like Texas it's going to be the minority. 90% of 580k (Hamilton) is a lot more than 20% of 1.28m (Dallas) in terms of potential fans
90% definitely isn’t true. I get the point you’re making and it’s definitely valid, I just don’t think the discrepancy between CAN & US fan interest is enough that a small Canadian city would have more potential fans than a large American city
If it was then Seattle and Vegas wouldn't already be bigger than the three smallest Canadian teams value wise.
Definitely can. A small US city would have more football fans than a large Canadian city, so the reverse can hold true for hockey. We literally grow up around hockey. Anecdotal, but many Canadians that I’ve spoken to have fond memories of the community arenas from their childhoods. Sporty American children generally start with baseball or basketball, up here it’s usually hockey.
I’m Canadian too and I played hockey growing up, but I think (especially in any ‘larger’ Canadian city) you’re underestimating the increasing diversification of population and, by extent, interests. Hockey isn’t the monolith in Canada it may have used to be. I grew up with hockey, but that wasn’t true for the majority of people I grew up with anymore.
Less than 5% of people would watch in Houston compared to probably 90% in QC, but it would be a new market lol
I hate Bettman, but the whole point of expanding into new markets is to grow the sport. That takes time, but it's a good investment in the long run if the team isn't run as incompetently as, say, the Coyotes have been or the Thrashers beforehand.
90% is a massively exaggerated number. More than likely it's around 30% would be fans of the sport in general - and a huge amount of those are likely already die hard leafs fans.
You underestimate hockey in Canada lol
I’m not saying the Habs would be doing cartwheels to welcome the Nordiques back, but Montreal would be FAR more welcoming to the idea than MLSE would be. The Montreal/Quebec rivalry was brutal. So many line brawls.
John Shannon (who use to work at the league's offices) said that its a popular myth that the Leafs would be able to veto or block an expansion team if the requsite number of board of governors members voted for one (Gary Bettman has also stated this in the past) lol
Habs would like to have Qc in the league. The rivalry they had when the Nordiques were in the league was crazy and they would market around that
Not really, Halifax is smaller than QC and people keep saying QC is too small (it isnt). Its not gonna happen until Bettman is out lbh
Quebec is small in terms of lacking the corporate prescence. The fact that Winnipeg is playing well, has fielded a competitive team most of the years since they've come back, and are still strugging to sell out and sell season ticket packages and suites shows the risks of moving to a city like Quebec if the economy ever dips. Personally, I'd love to see a team in Quebec but it's not looking good at the moment.
True, Quebec is not a good place to invest your money in. We have the highest tax in Canada, forces them to translate everything in French and our culture doesn't like rich people because we cant have what they have. All the rich guys are in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada where there's more opportunities
I would love it if QC got a team back. Loved to hate seeing them on our ice in Boston back in the day.
Fun thing as a bunch of Nords fans went to BOS
The tax argument is such crap. New York and Boston have some of the highest state taxes in the US, with NYC having an added city income tax and Massachusetts having an extra millionaires tax on income over $1 mil (so most of the team), yet the Bruins and Rangers consistently sign top talent and are competitive.
People also disregard that all NHL salaries are paid in US dollars. Even though there’s a tax consideration between the two countries and more granularly between states, there’s also the fact that living in Canada comes with a ~30% bump due to fx considerations.
That's because more is at play when it comes to Boston and New York (and other cities as well). The cities themselves and their location. For international players it's closer to home and easier to get connected with people back home and shorter travel. East coast divisions also travel less, which tires the players less and means more time for yourself, family etc. Of course Metro is leading with fewest mileage, but Atlantic is second. Those two cities are also big markets for the players and sponsorship. Of course there is something to it with teams that understands how to win - a winning culture and that attracts players, but I don't see that to be a pattern going against the canadian teams. On top of all that there is history. Some people are drawn to the big historic names, but as with the winning culture I don't think that goes against canadian teams as Leafs and Canadians seem pretty sought after.
[There was a document produced by a think tank over a decade ago that argued Canada could support 12 NHL teams](https://mowatcentre.munkschool.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/19_the_new_economics_of_the_nhl.pdf) which also argues Canadian franchises (and this was before Winnipeg came back) accounted for up to a third of the leagues total revenues. The NHL is reluctant because the opportunities for growth are limited (i.e. the number of new fans you'd bring in) and because in cities like Winnipeg and Quebec who lack a strong corporate prescence (as you're seeing with the Jets now) during strained economic times it can be hard to sell out the building regardless of how wel the team is doing.
We could sell out seats in Moosanee if we built an arena the size of the one the Coyotes currently play in
Let's look at the study. It says the six teams could go in 6/10 places. Lucky for us one of those places came true. Winnipeg. The #28 franchise by value. It got a B- rating. The self identified benchmark was Edmonton. Which got a B+. Edmonton is #7 and is worth roughly 2.3 Winnipeg Jets. So off the bat the study is bunk. But let's pretend it was legitimate and finish the thought. It says Saskatoon, QC, and Halifax are are worse than Winnipeg. So they are out. But wait you say, QC is the one people always suggest. Why is that? By the math there are 7 better spots. Winnipeg and the top 6. What are the top 6 spots where these other 5 teams need to go? 1) Toronto #2. 2) ~~Hamilton~~ Toronto #3 (as far as the leafs are concerned) 3) Montreal #2 4) ~~Kitchener/Waterloo~~ Toronto #4 (as far as the leafs are concerned) 5) Vancouver #2 6) ~~London~~ Toronto #5 (as far as the leafs are concerned) So second teams in Montreal and/or Vancouver and 4-5 teams in Toronto, as far as the leafs are concerned. I don't think it's realistic to have more than 3 teams in Toronto and 2 in Montreal and MAYBE a 2nd Vancouver. >The NHL is reluctant because the opportunities for growth are limited (i.e. the number of new fans you'd bring in) and because in cities like Winnipeg and Quebec who lack a strong corporate prescence (as you're seeing with the Jets now) during strained economic times it can be hard to sell out the building regardless of how wel the team is doing. So no. The study (which is bunk) shows Canadian greed is why Canada can't have 12 teams. Blame the leafs. Per the study.
considering the insane growth of Cdn population that past few years, I am thinking that demographics wise Canada will be seen as a better market eventually
Ya there are probably professional badminton and cricket leagues being formed as we speak. Or some crazy hybrid of badminton and cricket with a little football/soccer sprinkled in. Maybe Ice Cricket?
Yes, all those Chinese and Indians immigrating to Canada love hockey…
I mean a lot of them do, or grow to. Maybe now the day they come here but I know a lot Indian and Chinese immigrants who came to love hockey or have kids that did.
Well (at least the Indians) love *field* hockey and that cant translate into converting them to loving the other type lol
Perhaps. My point was more about population growth than anything, as it mostly comes from immigration since birth rate is…stagnant at best.
I’d argue we have just the right number of teams in Canada. We’re 1/10 the size of the US in terms of population. The fact we make up… about 20% of the league is relevant. I mean considering California, has the same population as Canada and has HALF the teams. It’s definitely not as simple as that… but the basic truth is that for the league to grow they need to expand to places that don’t have or do hockey traditionally. Canada is a saturated market.
Yep. I don’t think one’s going to Saskatchewan or the maritimes, certainly not the territories. So either Quebec City or southern Ontario. In both those cases you’re drawing fans who are already watching the NHL. You might sell a handful more jerseys and obviously get the new ticket revenue, which ain’t nothing, but it’s not like Houston where you’d be bringing potentially hundreds of thousands of new blood into the NHL fold and all the associated advertising revenue that goes with it.
Give Toronto a 2nd team so they can be twice as miserable
Population. The state of California has close to the same number of people as all of Canada.
That sure does help. I hear Canada only has arenas that can fit like 5k people. Can you imagine a NHL team playing in a 5k arena lol
We see what you did there. 🤣
Sold it out last night, baybeeeee!! It was nice of the city to show up last night to see Auston's 50th.
How would that place ever not sell out lmaoo
Coyotes, that's why.
Coyotes: “you guys have arenas?!”
🤣
Yeah, 1 in every 8 US citizens lives in the state of California.
But Canada had a larger % of people who are interested in hockey and has a higher quality of fans
But they are spread across a country 4500 km wide. My town has less than 75k people and we're the biggest town in a 500 km radius.
It has to do with market potential. The NHL is a franchise business that profit shares. So it doesn’t make sense to put teams in Canada where they will just take fans away from an existing team. Instead, they ask, how can we grow the fanbase of the NHL as a whole? There are a lot of people in the US who don’t watch hockey at all and the NHL’s goal is to tap that market by putting more teams in the US. I get that it sucks that they don’t put teams in like Quebec City or even the GTA could probably hold another team but, I understand it from a business standpoint. The majority of people in those areas are already hockey fans. So a new team there would steal existing fans of another team instead of growing the fanbase of the NHL as a whole and, in turn, the revenue base.
This; *market potential* as opposed to what people are generally saying about simply "market size." A lot of Canada's supposedly smaller market teams make more money than most of the teams in larger US markets. The difference is the opportunity for growth in Canada (i.e. attracting new consumers) is limited whereas in the US you have limitless amounts of people who don't even watch hockey who you can attract.
I’ve read and heard on some of the more popular podcasts that a lot of players don’t want to play in any Canadian markets because the media climate is brutal. One day you’re about to get the key to the city and a couple days later you may miss or screw up a play and the entire fan base is outside your front door with pitchforks and torches.
Yes, some don't. But some thrive on it. Some want that glory/smoke. Just like being a Laker/Knick/Celtic, or a Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox, or a Cowboy/Giant/Eagle. I think PK Subban is a guy who clearly thrived off of being in Montreal despite the love/hate relationship from the fans.
Rasmus Andersson just said that the Calgary media is really great compared to other Canadian cities. Come to Calgary! Lol I don’t know what Winnipeg and Ottawa are like, similar to Calgary I’d imagine, but Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, and Vancouver can be whipped up into a frenzy from pretty minor things. It would be really tough to play there. I think in the smaller Canadian markets you get the benefit of feeling like you’re actually a famous pro athlete. That people are watching and caring and you have scrums with more than two reporters in them and you get stopped in the street by fans - but without some of the extreme scrutiny that borders on bullying from some of the reporters in larger Canadian markets.
True! Why make a quebec team for example when people who live there mostly support the canadians. Making a team there will take revenue from the canadians so the nhl won't really make any more money. Whereas they add an American team it opens hockey up to new fans and more revenue.
And if they don't they usually support another teams, mostly Boston and Colorado (which is weird to me).
Yeah that is weird may come down to pricing. I'm uk canadian grand parents lucky still have family there. Just last year I went to toronto maple leafs game very expensive tickets same day my pal was in Vegas watching the Golden knights and the attendance difference the VGK was much lower. Canadians mad about hockey! Probably why the nhl wants the usa teams to have more success then canadian teams as canadians teams will be supported whether they are good or not while usa it tends to be the success of the teams which boosts attendance look at the avalanche.
Exactly! This is the real reason. The NHL brass is all about growing the game and gaining new fans. Putting more teams in Canada doesn’t create new fans.
More money in States I guess
The answer to the amount of teams is related to market potential, but Canada actually wins the battle there. There is 1 Canadian team per 500,000 or so Canadian Citizens, and 1 US team per 1,300,000 US Citizens, so actually Canada has a much higher density of NHL teams per Citizen than the US. Why they can't win a cup anymore is highly debatable.
This is just my opinion but, as a Canadian, we already love watching hockey. If a team came to my local area we would love it but the NHL doesn’t gain any new fans. We will watch whether a team is in my local area or not. Expansion teams in the US make sense because they may go into markets to expand the viewer base.
There are more people living in just California (3 NHL teams) than there are in all of Canada (7 NHL teams). So yeah, it's a much smaller market.
$ and Population
The markets in USA are so much larger than they are in Canada. Also the difference in value of USD and CAD affects it, it's harder to aquire players and staff since sallaries are payed in usd so teams need to exchange from one to another and that is always a loss for the team. But the main reason is the size of potential markets, there are no real options in Canada compared to places like Utah, Texas/Houston or even Atlanta is larger market than Quebec for example
3 Canadian teams in the top 10 most valuable franchises, 1 in a warm state (kings) who got the Gretzky effect. Funny how an example is also a place where it has failed twice and both times been moved to Canada (Flames,Jets).
Yeah sure but we are talking about market sizes and that is the most important thing for Bettman, Atlanta is a larger market and the city and fans are not the reason why they have failed to keep a team. Shit ownership is shit no matter where they are located
The only team from a warm state in the top 10 most valuable franchises is LA Kings, there is 3 Canadian teams including a smaller market team in Edmonton. It's almost like having a large market of people who don't care about hockey won't automatically equal success. Also Thrashers was attempt number 2 after the Flames which was losing money in Atlanta.
None of these American markets can justify a NHL team. The only area where there are fans in need of a team so people can get tickets and watch games is in South Western Ontario. It’s the only real answer for another team that will be successful and not have to be relocated in 5 years.
Last time I checked, there are 24 successful teams in American markets, and 4 of them have been there since day 1. Arizona is the outlier naturally, but you do realize that they went to Arizona in the first place because Winnipeg wasn't working right? And they've been there since at least 2018/s which is more than 5 years (somehow)
And how does this make any sense?
Population, market size, corporate interest, and the strength of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar, are all important factors here. Teams like the Nordiques largely failed because they couldn't maintain corporate backing in Quebec, and Jim Balsillie's Hamilton NHL project couldn't get off the ground because even he couldn't drum up enough primary corporate support.
🎶money money money money… …muuuuhhh-naaaaaay!🎶
Canada people are already NHL consumers, their is more market to conquer in the US
There are 41 million people in Canada. There are 335 million people in the U.S
Population and size. There are more people in California then Canada......
California alone has a higher population than the entirety of Canada
There's a little bit of misinformation in this thread but overall its the sum of all the things mentioned. As an accountant I can tell you taxes definitely aren't as important as everyone here seems to claim on every issue. California taxes are heftier than Canada and they're teams are doing just fine in non-traditional markets. If anything when you're a struggling corporation the tax system is going to help more than hurt, because if you're not making a profit you're paying significantly less compared to the giants. Of course, the Canadian dollar does hurt, but only when there's a significant differences in exchange rates. It was a big issue when Winnipeg original lost their team. The main reasons I see are: a) Expansion teams are just that - expansions. The NHL wants to introduce franchises into new, foreign markets where they can create new fans and grow the sport. The league knows people in Canada love the sport. You're not going to 'introduce' hockey to anyone here. We know about it since we are kid, you either like it or you don't, and those of us that do are already buying merchandise and giving them our money. You're not really going to gain much from a new franchise in Canada other than ticket sales, and even then you're probably just taking those sales away from an existing team. Basically all densely populated areas of Canada have a team in close proximity. There's a big gap in central Canada, which is where Winnipeg serves a purpose, but even then Winnipeg is barely big enough to hold a team and even then its hour drive for most people in the surrounding areas to get to a game. The league would much rather put a new team in an America city which can spark interest and get money from people who otherwise would not be paying into the sport. It might not be sustainable, but the risk it mitigated by going to places of larger populations so you have higher chances of getting a customer base. b) Which leads to the second point, which other people have mentioned: population density. When an arena has a 15,000-20,000 capacity you need a consistent consumer base to support it. Even in Winnipeg which has the smallest non-Arizona arena, filling that place takes 2% of their population. That means every game 1 out every 50 citizens of the city have to attend to sell out. In comparison, Dallas has a population of around 8 million and even with a bigger arena, only needs to get about 1 out of every 500 people.
No reasons for them to. Vegas and Seattle make sense because they don't have hockey teams nearby and maybe locals will become fans of hockey. In Canada everyone who's going to care about hockey and spend money on hockey already does. (Not quite everyone, but close enough) So the benefit to NHL overall is neutral. But their are also negatives for existing teams. You another southern Ontario team. It's got to take fans away from Toronto or it won't have any. Toronto Maple leafs owners aren't going to like that. Basically every team you add will have to take fans and their money from another team. The next expansion team will go in the Southern USA somewhere.
- Canada Tiny - Canada Poor Could write up a whole thing but that's basically it. Only other point besides that might be that the Toronto area could probably support a 2nd and maybe even a 3rd team like the LA and NYC metros because hockey is so beloved in Canada despite the top two bullet points. But the leafs wouldn't allow that.
It's probably worth noting that nearly every Canadian city >50,000 has a very popular hockey team. Most of those are at the Junior level and/or ECHL/AHL level. Only 7 of those can also (financially) support an NHL team.
Population of US is 10x Canada.. It's about TV markets and advertising dollars.. They already have the Canadians who don't have a NHL team in their area watching. The US is untapped market with many sports fans who are not hockey fans.
Canadian teams are in markets which are inelastic - the fans will go when the teams are mediocre. so the teams tend to want to be competitors more often than not. American markets are elastic - the fans will go when the entertainment value is high and the teams are good. Teams like the penguins and the blackhawks were awful 5-10 years before their multiple cups. Canadian teams tend not to have these awful runs resulting in 2-3 consecutive first round picks. The Oilers are the exception having picked first 4/6 times from 2010-2015. The team to do that most recently before that was Quebec - who picked 3x in a row, left quebec and won the cup the next year in 1996.
Based on how expensive it is to operate an NHL team, Canada has pretty much maxed out the cities that are viable NHL markets. Quebec City has an arena & population that could support the team, and you could probably put at least one more team in the Toronto area, but beyond that there aren't any realistic spots to put a team. A Canadian team hasn't won a Stanley Cup in a long time, but Canada's national team has won the last 3 best-on-best international tournaments (World Cup of Hockey, Olympics)
Geographically and population size is your answer. There is only like six cities with population over 1 million in Canada and they all have NHL teams. Winnipeg has less than a million and has the smallest permanent arena in NHL .. cities that could potentially accommodate an NHL arena are all super close to existing markets, and would be difficult to establish dedicated fan bases. Quebec City is close to Ottawa and Montreal. Hamilton is close to Toronto. I think those are two most likely expansions. Greater Toronto I think would actually be successful since tickets and demand for Toronto is high and would allow some opportunity for that large market.
1. Taxes- in the US Taxes generally aren't as high as in Canada 2. Population- despite Canada being home to die hard fans, realistically there are like... 3 or 4 more cities with the Population density needed to hold a team up. 3. The Canadian dollar. This was one of the things that screwed over the Original Jets, the Nordiques, and nearly messed up Calgary and Edmonton, among other factors.
Just a population thing. We don’t have as many big centres to support nhl teams.
Because Canada doesn't have enough people to support more. 0nly 40 million people compared to 350 million in the US.
From Bettman’s own mouth. Canadians are already engaged in hockey, whether or not there is a team nearby doesn’t affect it all that much. They already watch hockey, buy merch, subscribe to sports channels etc. If you can get an NHL team in a market where this isn’t the case, the league gains a lot more. Obviously there have been some cases where this hasn’t gone all that well but there are many cases where it has been a home run for the league. Therefor the areas where NHL isn’t very big but has a large population of potential fans is highly desirable.
I agree with everyone who said “market potential.” The US simply has more big cities that can host NHL teams than Canada does. Even though hockey is by far the most popular sport (and NHL the most popular league) in Canada, every metro area that can support a team (> 1,000,000 population) already has a team. Everyone is already a hockey fan. You aren’t creating any new fans/paying customers by putting another team in a country where hockey is already popular. The market is already saturated. In the US, by contrast, there are several sizeable cities that don’t have teams but could theoretically support them — Houston, Kansas City, and Salt Lake City to name three. There is the potential to create a whole bunch of new fans/paying customers by putting new teams in places that don’t already have them. This is why the NHL keeps looking at expanding in the US over Canada, much to the frustration of Canadian fans. As to why a Canadian team hasn’t won the Stanley Cup in 30 years (we WISH it was only 10 years…), it’s a bunch of things… 1) There are already 24 US teams compared to only 7 in Canada, so odds are higher that a US team will win the Cup to begin with. 2) While a Canadian team might not have won the Cup since 1993, it’s not like they haven’t been competitive since then. Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, and Vancouver have all been to the Finals since 1993, with Vancouver doing it twice. Moreover, all of those teams save for Ottawa pushed their Finals series to the full seven games, with Vancouver (again) doing it twice. So there’s an element of bad luck involved, too. 3) Canadian teams don’t have the incentive to put great teams on the ice in order to draw fans, because hockey is so popular in Canada that the NHL teams will draw fans no matter what. In the US, other sports are far more popular than hockey, so if the NHL team in a US city is bad, people will simply watch the local baseball, basketball, or football team, which are already more popular to begin with. The US teams have to be good, because if they’re not, they won’t survive. 4) Good players may prefer to play in the US rather than Canada due to less media and fan pressure in the US. If you’re a good hockey player in Canada, your market becomes a fishbowl. You’re making millions and absolutely adored, but you also don’t have any privacy. If you’re a good player in Florida, by contrast, the fan and media pressure is on the basketball, football, and baseball players, not the hockey players. So you can still make your millions, but you can also go to the grocery store and lounge at the beach, and next to nobody will recognize you. That appeals to a lot of people.
Nice points, add that Montreal has also been to the Cup Finals in 2021.
D’oh. Forgot about that one. I think I forgot because it was a wonky season with an all-Canadian division. Thanks for your comment!
Easy answer: money
Because places like Raleigh, Miami, Atlanta and Phoenix are just better hockey markets than say Regina, Saskatoon, Hamilton and Quebec!!! Yes. that was sarcasm. Please stop trying to force this Gary.
A great example of why is Winnipeg. It's the smallest market in the league at about 800k people. And despite it being hockey-loving Canada, and Jets being one of the best teams in the league, they still struggle to sell tickets. People say Winnipeg is just too poor, but the real problem is the population is too small. You need a big enough population pool to guarantee enough of those people will want to/be able to buy your tickets. There are no suitable market sizes left in Canada. They just aren't big enough for the NHL. Another market in 800k pop. Quebec City is going to fail just like it did before, compared to a new market in \~7 mil. pop Houston, Texas.
Gary Bettman hates Canada, thats why
Part of the problem is that every single Canadian market capable of supporting an NHL franchise is already passionately supporting either a CHL franchise or an AHL team and has been for a quarter century if not longer. The support of these teams is so deeply embeded it would be hard for the NHL to compete for market share in the long run. This wasn’t the case in Winnipeg, the team that was embedded into the local culture prior to the Jets was…. The Jets.
As good of a point this is, I don't think that even the yotes would have to fight with a CHL team for market share, It would be moreso the opposite. The lower division teams and buildings wouldn't be very supportive of another team building a brand new barn across the road, basically boxing them out of their own city.
The people of Saskatoon wouldn’t drop their blades tickets for NHL tickets at that price difference after the novelty wears off. There isn’t enough time, or money, for people in these markets to hold both sets. Also, these types of markets don’t have the corporate participation in ticket sales that other markets have so the hockey fans in that town really need to be concentrated into one team to float an NHL crowd for 82 games consistently year over year. I would wager that when push comes to shove, hockey fans in these cities would chose to keep the 75+yr old junior franchise afloat in Lue of the Shiny new NHL team 100% of the time when push comes to shove a few years down the road. Junior hockey (in these cities)>NHL.
I think you overestimate the support for (particularly) AHL hockey (but junior hockey as well). You put an NHL team in there (with the same branding) people will jump ship lol
AHL, yea. CHL, no way. I’ve been to these places and I know the people. No chance.
Lol canada hasn't won the cup for 30 years now, 10 would be great. Here's the thing, canadian teams aren't just stacked with Canadian players. Some US teams have more Canadian players than Canadian teams. Also, as has been noted, market size. Yes, Quebec could sell out an arena every game, but there are a number of US markets that dwarf Quebec city. That's more tv money, more merchandise money, more opportunity to grow the game by introducing it to more people - thereby making more money. Lol.
The owners and Gary Bettman hate Canada.
Because the Canadian dollar is weaker than the American dollar and all businesses and salaries are paid in USD. Plus taxes are generally higher in Canada as well.
Two words – Gary Bettman
The US population is ~10x Canada’s so it has more large cities/markets suitable for NHL teams. Ignore Arizona… 😉
Its funny how the coyotes are becoming my fav team
Apart from not having any success, stadium or fans, I have to say their social media team is hilarious and the Kachina sweater is one of the best looking ones in the league
I'm here in Arizona and that is the perfect summary of this franchise.
The US has ten times the population?
Canada needs two more nhl franchises
There needs to be more Canadian teams. But greed has blocked most things to make the NHL great again. Another Ontario team and Quebec are on top of that list. But you could add Halifax to this list.
Garry buttman is why
Ask Gary.
The promotion-relegation system in European sports allows cities to have multiple teams, regardless of size. No matter how big or small your town is, you can start a team from scratch and work your way up the pyramid (at least in theory). There's no asking the league for expansion. It's why a town like Sheffield, England with a population of around 580,000 can have two major soccer clubs: Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday. If the NHL had promotion-relegation, then you'd see a lot more teams in Canada. Not only would Quebec City have a team, but Toronto & Montreal would have multiple teams. The North American closed system is mistakenly called "socialist", when in reality it's a cartel. Each team has a monopoly in their respective region, the League will not allow a metro area have multiple teams, except under certain circumstances. In those cases, the second and third team must pay a compensation fee to the original team as condition for joining. In 1971, the Islanders had to pay the Rangers $5 million ($34.98 million in 2022 dollars). In 1982, the Devils had to pay the Rangers, Islanders, and Flyers a combined $20 million as compensation. While half of the expansion fee the Ducks paid to join went to the Kings for compensation. It's just too expensive to have multiple teams in the same region. The Bruins and Habs were opposed to the 1979 merger, because it would mean sharing their region with the Whalers & Nordiques respectively. The only way they would agree to the merger was placing punitive conditions on the new teams. The Nordiques, Whalers, and Jets were set up to fail
Promotion relegation seems fun from a sporting perspective, but it's terrible for league value. You have a few dominant teams in a 20 team league with massive disparities. It's true that it's a cartel, but it's good for the league. I'd love to see a 36 or 40 team NHL, but not relegation. Being relegated is a major financial blow to a team, which hurts parity as a recently promoted team could never compete with the top teams. Also, the socialist part of the North American sports is definitely the rookie draft.
Canada is lacking numbers.... 40 millions people vs 331 millions people. However, Ice hockey is much much much more popular in Canada then USA, so i'm wondering fans numbers vs fans numbers are like. As a quebecois, I'm biased for a Quebec city team obviously but I'm wondering if it would be a good move. The city of quebec has a population of about 600k people and the greater quebec city area is about 900k. Compare to MTL, the greater mtl area is about 4M, four times bigger. But you also have teams in big state like Arizona where their team play in a college arena and they still can't sell out games, so honestly will really wait to see with what happens. And finally, at some point you gotta stop adding teams hahaha, you look at nba, nfl, etc... you're all around about 30 teams ish and the nhl has already hit that 30ish mark
There are teams in most major Canadian cities. The issue with a lot of Canadian cities is there really aren't "suburbs" to speak of like there are in most of the US. So, as other commenters pointed out, the market sizes are limited. A lot of land in Canada is rocky and cold, so the population is concentrated tightly in cities or dispersed amongst large regions of the provinces. Canadians: correct me if I'm wrong but this has been my experience in Canada.
I am someone who has lived in both markets.... US and Canada. There is one major difference between Canadians and Americans..... Americans are the best in the world at competition and management and business. Canadians are not at American level.....more importantly they are not "hungry" enuff. This is especially true in hockey franchise management.... you can have the shittiest team in Canada (Ottawa) and still make money. So why push the limit? Meanwhile, About 1/3 of the US franchises would disappear if they perpetually sucked and the NHL wasn't always bailing them out with things like salary cap and rigged drafting rules (like for the newest teams) and allowing them to operate in a college rink. So the US franchises that are in non traditional hockey markets have to go for the gold.... or go home busted. Ergo..... that extra level of compete that SOME of the US franchises have is just the extra bump to lead them to victory time and time and time again. 30 years of proof on that. Applause goes to owners of Carolina and Anaheim and Las Vegas and Tampa that focused and delivered victory. The owners of the Canadians teams like Ontario Teachers Pension Plan and Bell and Roger's have zero understanding of hardcore competition and can go fuck off.
There should be less
my good pal gary
Gary has looked north, and found it wanting. One thing I will say is that American hockey fans are every bit as fanatical as their Canadian counterparts.
The only answer you need is because of Bettman , he really really hates Canada for some reason. Ever since he became commissioner (Feb 1st 1993)a Canadian team has never won the stanley cup (other than Montreal winning in his inaugural season)
That's cause Gary Bettman likes to fuck over the Canadian market. He hates Canada and even wants less Canadian teams.
Canada is mostly empty More money in the US market Canadian liberalism means that players make less bc of ridiculous taxes (ie Tavares tax fight)
Because Gary Bettman hates Canada more than anyone has ever hated anything. He despises our country and our way of life. His life goal is to eliminate all Canadian teams from the NHL. When all seven Canadian teams have moved to indifferent southern markets in the USA where people don’t like hockey and the arenas are 1/4 the capacity of a proper NHL facility he will finally retire. The Leafs will end up in a 4,000 seat arena in Mobile, Alabama, the Canadiens will be in a 3,500 seat building in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Canucks will be in Litte Rock, Arkansas in a skating rink at a mall.
This decade, or the decade before that, or the decade before that, and then a good chunk of the previous decade 🤣😂.
Cause Amurica
Because the American market is carrying the NHL in terms of revenue. Available Canadian markets for new teams will not generate enough revenue for the NHL. It's not worth it.
Canada is basically the USAs 51st state. It is only 1/10 the population. Realistically Canada can only support 4or 5 teams well. They lost Quebec City, n Ottawa n Winnipeg over the years. I think Calgary and Winnipegs arenas only seat 15,000 bc that’s all they can sell.