Expensive Hockey Broadcasts

While news broke on Monday of the deal that was announced today between Rogers Communications and the National Hockey League, it's hard to imagine Sportsnet's owners spending more money on a product that didn't return profits on their investment until very recently and didn't make a significant impact on the bottom line over a ten-year period. Yet the deal announced today not only say Rogers Sportsnet commit to another twelve-year deal with the NHL, but they actually spent considerably more money to secure the national broadcast rights in Canada over that period.

Let's jump into the time machine and head back to 2013 when Rogers and the NHL signed a blockbuster 12-year, $5.2-billion deal that put the NHL on Rogers' networks. The two sides have always spoken about that deal in positive terms, but it isn't hard to see through the smokescreen that both sides were building. Rogers sold French TV rights to TVA Sports in a deal to help curb the losses that were mounting, and they sold off rights to Monday Night Hockey to Amazon in 2024. Finding games was suddenly harder than before.

Despite trying to shore up this deal to help their bottom line, Rogers Communications saw very little return on their investment. According to the Globe & Mail's Simon Houpt, "The pretax profit for its three Sportsnet services has stayed flat in that period, inching up to $88-million in 2023 from $87-million on 2013" despite earning $92.55 in subscription revenue from customers who subscribed to all three services of Sportsnet, Sportsnet One and Sportsnet 360. That figure was up from $34.10 in 2013, and yet they earned just $1 million more in pretax profit despite subscription costs nearly tripling.

Upon signing the deal today, Rogers' shares "fell 5.9 per cent on Tuesday to close at $36.17 in Toronto, reaching their lowest intraday level since 2012" as reported by Bloomberg News. Part of that drop was due to the failing Rogers Bank business, but it was also sparked by investors who "are already wary of Rogers' balance sheet and funding headwinds". TD Cowen's Vince Valentini told Bloomberg News today, "[W]e do not expect this rights renewal to be either a negative for Rogers, nor an overly material event."

None of that paints a particularly good picture of the investment that Rogers made with the NHL, so why did they renew the twelve-year deal for $11 billion ($7.7 billion USD), more than double the value of the original deal they signed with the NHL?

Rogers chief executive officer Tony Staffieri explained the new investment at the press conference today, stating,

"The value of live sports content just continues to appreciate, and it's really rooted in viewership continuing to grow. If you look at our NHL deal over the last decade, viewership grew by 50 per cent.

"And with that kind of growth, what you see is revenue growing at a very steady and healthy pace in terms of advertising revenue, subscription revenue, and in the deal we have now, sub-licensing revenue. And so as we look to the next 12 years, we were very thoughtful in how we thought about the economics."

Aside from the fact that revenue isn't growing exclusively from hockey, Mr. Staffieri's own pretax profit reporting shows that the hockey deal isn't helping Rogers find increased profits nor is there any guarantee for future profits with more and more people cutting the cord. Streaming services may generate more money for Rogers, but the Globe & Mail's Irene Galea and Simon Houpt noted that "Mr. Staffieri sidestepped a question about whether the company would pass on the added costs to consumers".

One place where Rogers can make up some of the difference is through their licensing deals as they established with TVA Sports and Amazon. The Canadian Press reported that "Staffieri said Rogers will 'look to opportunities to continue to sub-license where it makes sense'" which means that Rogers' streaming services may carry less games despite promises of fewer blackouts and games from both sides of the border including "up to 10 more games on certain teams".

The only problem is that if they sell off those rights to another streaming service or network, there's an increased chance that people will stop paying for Sportsnet's services. After all, if you have to subscribe to six different services to watch your favorite team, how does that help hockey fans? Hint: it doesn't.

Complicating the process further is that the relationship between Sportsnet and CBC ends with the current rights deal, and there's no extension between the two networks yet. Rogers Sports & Media President Colette Watson said today, "We like our partnership and we value our partnership with the CBC and over the next 18 months we'll look to see if there's a continued partnership there."

That's an odd statement - "look to see if there's a continued partnership" - when CBC is literally one of a handful of stations that is available on all cable packages from coast to coast to coast. Regardless of Sportsnet's feelings towards CBC, removing hockey from the nation's public broadcaster would be like carving the heart out of the nation's chest. Hockey Night in Canada is an institution, and Rogers should be working to keep that institution intact. After all, without Hockey Night in Canada's enduring legacy on CBC, there's no guarantee that Sportsnet owns the broadcast rights for the NHL.

In the end, aside from owning the rights for NHL games, I am baffled why Rogers Communications would sign a new deal for $11 billion that sees Rogers pay the NHL in escalating annual payments. The NHL has continued to profess that it is a valuable asset for anyone to own, but Rogers' balance sheet says otherwise as their adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) show a margin of just 3.4 per cent from media at $84 million. Rogers isn't making money off this deal, and now they doubled their commitment to maintain it? Make that make sense because it financially does not.

I'm not saying that Rogers Communications won't turn a profit on their newest NHL deal that will expire after the 2037-38 season. They can look at innovating and introducing new technology to help make the game better on television, they can have a better presence with quality content, and they can show intriguing matchups, but none of that will matter if the network is losing bags of money.

An $11-billion total bill with escalating annual payments means that the media wing of Rogers Communications will only see margins shrink annually if they can't sell enough ads or sponsored segments. And if margins go to zero or into the negative, expect Rogers to try to erase their losses by selling off more broadcasting rights.

The business of hockey should be its own specialized university degree because it's hard to make sense how hockey fans benefit with this new deal. Especially if it ends up costing fans more money.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!

A New Month Begins

With the calendar turning to April today, I am taking a day off. March was a busy month of hockey with everything that happened in the last few weeks, and I just need a night to unwind and not think about the game. Aside from updating some spreadsheets and cleaning up the desktop of the laptop where I do some of the graphic and video work you see here, tonight will be a night where I can purge whatever leftover thoughts I had from March and press on into April where the temperatures will rise, the game will intensify, and teams will begin preparing for a playoff run or an off-season of changes. While it may be April Fool's Day, this is not a joke: I am taking today off.

I can tell you that work has been far busier and far more challenging in the last month than anything I've seen in my career with my current employer. I'm not complaining about being busy nor do I feel overwhelmed, but it's that sort of constant stream of work where you look at the clock at 9am before checking it again only to see that it's 2pm. I like being busy at work, but that kind of constant flow of work starts to wear one down as there never seemed to be a break where one could have caught one's breath. And everyone needs that break.

On that note, it was one year ago where I proclaimed that I would likely be posting less stuff on this site. That proclamation never came close to being true as I continue to add something daily over the last year, even if it's not hockey-related in any way. I was thinking about the promise I made to have the site undergo serious renovations - something I am going to complete in the summer - but it occurred to me that I need to start adding more to one part of the blog.

I was looking at the bookcase that holds a number of the books I've reviewed here, and I have two piles of books that aren't organized on the shelves because they have yet to be read and reviewed. How did I get two piles of unread books? They were bought or given to me as gifts with the intention of cracking their spines, but my time was directed elsewhere and those books were forgotten.

Having admitted this, I am making it my goal to read two of the books I have set aside with the intention of reviewing them on here and on my GoodReads account. According to the total on that site, I have 38 hockey-related books I have yet to read, and that number is far too large for my liking. The only way to reduce is to start flipping pages and absorbing the information from those pages. That will start this weekend. If all goes well, there should be a review of the book I chose to read next week. After that, it becomes habit.

Not every weekend will see my face in a book, but I do want to whittle down that list of 38 publications to something in the single-digit values. There are some titles that are interesting to me, and I fully admit that I should have read them before embarking on this new habit-forming venture I'm undertaking. For a guy who laments those at work who either don't read directions or skip the mandatory parts of directions, I should be following my own advice.

March may have been National Reading Month in Canada, but I'm kicking it up a notch or three in April. Better late than never, right?

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!

The Ripples Felt

If you're a hockey jersey collector, you know that gamework jerseys simply feel different than the replica jerseys sold for less money. On-ice jerseys have the fight strap and the reinforced stitching that allows them to stand up to the abuse the jersey could take while worn on the ice, so they feel much heavier than a similar replica jersey. I'm not here to tell you one is better than the other - that's a personal choice based on what one likes and, in most cases, what one can afford - but I am here to tell you that the outrageous prices being charged for these on-ice jerseys is likely going to increase yet again thanks to the American political situation. It seems hockey cannot escape politics.

As you'll see in the video below, all on-ice NHL jerseys are fabricated in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec at the SP Apparel factory there. This has been the case since 1975 as the wool comes from the US before the employees in Ste-Hyacinthe turn that into fabric. There are pieces that come from other places - logos come from China, for example - but the factory in Quebec puts together the 100-or-so pieces of the jersey, applies the logo, and adheres the NHL logo to the jersey before shipping. In short, it's made in Canada.

CBC's Douglas Gelevan went to SP Apparel in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec to speak with staff there about the potential upcoming tariffs that could be imposed this week by the US government. If costs are forced to go up, there's a chance that the US-based Fanatics company, who holds the licensing for all NHL jerseys, could look at moving the operation elsewhere to avoid the additional costs that could be incurred. Clearly, these tariffs could have a significant impact on NHL business on both sides of the border.

Here is Mr. Gelevan's story from CBC News tonight. Have a watch.
I'll be the first to admit that Fanatics' prices for authentic NHL jerseys is nearly criminal considering that the secondary market rarely sees jerseys rise above $300 on average. That point aside, if Fanatics is forced to look at other manufacturers within the lower 48 states, there's no guarantee that the quality, the workmanship, and the price will remain the same. After all, SP Apparel does the vast majority of the work in their factory without outsourcing to anyone else.

As Mr. Gelevan stated, the NHL has no say in where the jerseys are produced, so they'd be no help if Fanatics were to pull the production rights from SP Apparel. At the end of the day, moving the production to a US-based manufacturer likely would save Fanatics some money if tariffs are applied, but Dr. Moshe Lander, Concordia University Economics Professor, is correct: is the NHL willing to alienate Canadian fans if they allow Fanatics to move the production of jerseys south of the border? Methinks there would be conversations.

Of course, all of this may never occur if the American government simply came to its senses. I'm not here to discuss that topic, though. That's another ball of wax entirely, and I know how much people want to keep politics out of sports based on what we see on social media and comments on webpages and in forums. Just remember this example if you own hockey jerseys and want to scream about politics in sports because the sport has nothing to do with these politics.

I spend more time on this blog explaining that the NHL is a business, but rarely do I discuss how many people that business employs on both sides of the border. By having the politics of one country affect that business, the ripples are certainly felt on the other side of the border as well. My hope is that the people at SP Apparel aren't affected by Fanatics' coming decisions with respect to the tariff announcements, but I'd be naive to think they won't be.

Keep politics out of hockey, you say? For once, I agree with that sentiment when I think of the good people in Ste-Hyacinthe, Quebec. They did nothing to potentially be victims of a vengeful government, yet they may pay the ultimate price with their jobs which affects their livelihoods which affects their families. None of that is the goal of a trade war, but those are the ripples that will be felt.

If I can make a plea to anyone, I'd ask Fanatics to resist the urge to move the production of on-ice NHL jerseys to a US manufacturer in the event that tariffs are imposed. The NHL should be looking at finding ways to gain an exemption from these new tariffs if they are imposed, and my hope if that these two corporations can find a way to keep everything in place as it is today. It's better for all three corportations - SP Apparel as well - if everything remains as it is.

I often say on this blog that sports are a microcosm of society. Politics are definitely a part of society, and now we're seeing it bleed into the hockey world in a big way. Those are the ripples that will be felt if the US government imposes its will on society this week.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!

Just As Good In Kansas

While he was still wearing the familiar green-and-white of the Saskatchewan Huskies on his mask and pads, former Huskies men's hockey netminder Roddy Ross was in a different crease one week after winning a bronze medal in Ottawa at the U Cup National Men's Hockey Championship. AHL and ECHL teams will be looking across the university and college ranks on both sides of the border to help their quests in bringing home a championship, and the Wichita Thunder decided to shore up their goaltending situation by signing Ross to a deal yesterday. The former sixth-round pick of the Philadelphia Flyers in 2019 made his way to Coralville, Iowa where the Thunder were playing against the Iowa Heartlanders, and he got the start today for the Thunder as they wasted no time in seeing what he could do between the pipes!

There wasn't a lot of time for comments as my internet search turned up very little to reflect both the team's and Ross's thoughts on coming together, but Wichita head coach Bruce Ramsay likely knew that Ross would be ready for the challenge today. Ramsay is a veteran head coach with seasons in the AHL and ECHL including 2020-21 when he was named as the ECHL Coach of the Year, so having a netminder at his disposal like Ross is an advantage a lot of coaches would like. He gave the nod to Ross today who wore #1 in his professional debut.

The Thunder built a 2-0 lead through 40 minutes before the Heartlanders pressed hard in the third period. Officially, Ryan Miotto is the answer to the trivia question of "who scored the first professional goal on Roddy Ross" as he potted a rebound early in the third period to cut the lead to 2-1. The second professional goal that Ross surrendered went to Ryan McGuire who scored with just under eight minutes to play on the power-play on a deflection, and we'd hear the horn end regulation time with the teams tied at 2-2.

Iowa's Luke Mobley had the only shot on net that Iowa recorded in overtime because Sean Bates scored at 2:57 to give the Wichita Thunder the 3-2 overtime victory! That goal marked the first professional win for Ross in his career, and his 42-save performance will likely stand as one of the highest for the remainder of this season. Ross stopped 16 of 18 shots in the third period alone as Iowa outshot Wichita by an 18-3 count in the frame!

Ross will get a few days to practice with his new teammates after today's victory as Wichita will visit the Tulsa Oilers on Friday before returning home on Sunday to face the Allen Americans. With Tulsa blowing out Rapid City today, the Thunder still hold a one-point lead over the Oilers heading into Friday's game, so that's a big one for both teams. Wichita needs the win as Tulsa has a game in-hand on the Thunder, so expect a battle on Friday in the Oklahoma city.

With the win today, Wichita remains in third-place in the ECHL's Mountain Division, but they sit just four points back of the Tahoe Knight Monsters after they dropped a decision today to Idaho. With five games remaining on Wichita's schedule, they could close that gap and pass the Knight Monsters as the Thunder finish the season on the road in Tahoe for a three-game set with the Knight Monsters. Those games will be played on April 9, 11, and 12, and we could see the Thunder move into second-place. Can they catch Tahoe?

They'll certainly try, but they'll be a little harder to beat with Roddy Ross backstopping them. I'm happy to see Ross get a shot with the San Jose Sharks' ECHL affiliate, and there could be more opportunities for him as the San Jose Barracuda sit one point back of the Coachella Valley Firebirds in the AHL's Pacific Division. Ross certainly earned an opportunity at the ECHL level after the incredible season he had, and it's awesome to see him pick up his first professional win in his first professional start! Keep the winning ways going!

Congratulations to Roddy Ross, former Saskatchewan Huskies netminder, on landing with the Wichita Thunder, picking up his first professional win, and showing everyone why he was deserving of the 2025 Canada West Goaltender of the Year award!

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!

Own Your Markets

With the PWHL visiting St. Louis today as part of the season-long takeover tour, it's time to have a serious discussion about why this entire experiment has artificially boosted the PWHL's numbers and why that's bad for business. In the short term, there aren't a lot of negatives as the extra money generated at each of these stops helps the league conduct its business. However, the longer term problems don't disappear when one looks at the concerning numbers shown at the six arenas they're contracted to occupy. It's time to take a serious look at the direction of this league when it comes to butts in seats.

It's encouraging to see that 182,188 fans showed up for the fourteen games that weren't played in the six home arenas that the PWHL normally plays in, but that total represents 31.93% of the total attendance to date that the PWHL has attracted. There will be people who complain that I've included Agganis Arena in Boston, Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa, and Scotiabank Arena in Toronto, but those are technically neutral-site arenas since the Fleet, the Charge, and the Sceptres don't call those arenas "home" this season.

The catch here is that Boston has now played two games at Agganis Arena at Boston University, and they're doing better than what is being seen at the Tsongas Centre in Lowell. In those two games at the Terriers' home rink, the Fleet have played in front of 11,996 fans compared to 33,190 fans in eight games at Tsongas Center. The average for those two games is higher than what we're seeing at Tsongas Center, but the Agganis Arena is also far closer to downtown Boston than the Tsongas Center is.

That's not to say the Fleet can't be successful in Lowell, but they're a considerable distance from most of Boston. They still play to 64% of capacity of Tsongas Center and they average 4149 fans this season, but that total is 8.55% of the total attendance without the neutral-site arenas and just 5.82% of the total attendance this season. Those numbers simply don't work when looking at the Tsongas Center, but averaging 6000 fans at the Agganis Arena would. If the PWHL is going to be run like a business, location matters!

Of course, there can be no crossover between PWHL and NCAA players when it comes to playing at Agganis Arena due to the NCAA's rules, so any discussion of moving to Agganis Arena would require significant coordination. However, the numbers don't lie when it comes to the fans the Fleet attract when playing near the downtown area of Boston, and this is why they should be looking for an arena that moves them closer to all areas of the Boston metropolis.

The same problem exists just south of Boston as well as the New York Sirens are playing in front of the sparsest crowds in the circuit despite playing in the largest market. The Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey is nowhere near most of New York City, and that has negatively affected the attendance seen at Sirens games. To date, the Sirens have played twelve games at home with only 33,196 fans paying to get into the arena. That's an average of 2766 fans per game, and it represents 8.55% of the total attendance without the neutral-site arenas and 5.82% of the total attendance this season.

If you're wondering, the Sirens have attracted six more fans than the Fleet have this season despite playing four more games in their home arena. My math might be a little rusty, but that's not good.

The problem with the Sirens is that they didn't work on Long Island or Connecticut in Season One, and they aren't working in Newark in Season Two. Add in the fact that the city of New York doesn't have a university team outside of Long Island, and it seems pretty clear that the New York metropolis may not be a women's hockey hotbed despite the size of the market. There will be many who will make the case that it can be, but the numbers don't lie: the Sirens have not made an impact in that market in two seasons of hockey.

Let me be clear: this isn't to say that New York won't be a hockey hotbed for the women's game, but we should be looking at hockey history when it comes to the New York market. The NHL didn't have a US market until 1925 when the Boston Bruins joined the league, and the following season saw the New York Americans join the NHL. 1926-27 saw the New York Rangers join the league as the second New-York-based team, but it took nine years for the NHL's creation to reach and remain in New York with one of their oldest teams.

The other thing to remember is that the NHL had teams in Hamilton, Ottawa, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and second teams in both Montreal and New York long before they reduced the number to the six teams that solidified the NHL's hold as the top professional league in North America. They have had franchises fail in cities where they currently play, and they've gone back to those cities when they've shown they have proper ownership, a viable market, and a suitable arena.

Moving a team that isn't hitting critical benchmark numbers does not mean the PWHL has failed; rather, it should about moving a team to ensure greater overall stability for the league. As it stands, moving the Fleet to a better-located arena and moving the Sirens to a better women's hockey market would undoubtedly strengthen this league.

This is why any talk of expansion by the PWHL is ludicrous at this point. There are two teams who may not hit the required 17% of total attendance to ensure each team are contributing equally to the total attendance, and I'm fairly sure that adding teams and games to the schedule will do nothing to improve those numbers. If both the Fleet and Sirens were averaging 6000 fans per game, I wouldn't even be writing this article, but the reality is that location matters when it comes to getting the attendance numbers these teams need. In Boston's care, a better arena location to play to draw fans, and, in New York's case, a better market in which they can draw fans.

No one wants to see the PWHL fail, and the league can thrive if they can find six markets where a minimum of 6000 fans show up on average for each game. Toronto and Montreal are locks as they're pulling in 23.3% and 23.5% of the total attendance in their home rinks this season. Ottawa and Minnesota are doing their parts at 18.4% and 17.7%, so they're having moderate success. Boston could find success if they played at a rink like Agganis Arena more often, and New York might just need to find a new market.

While expansion is important to grow this league nationally, they need to be successful in the markets they currently occupy first. The league can beat the drum about how they pulled in more fans this season than the AHL and the ECHL, but let's not forget that the PWHL pushed 182,188 fans through turnstiles in NHL and NCAA rinks. The Sirens only outdrew two AHL teams and three ECHL teams, and the Fleet outdrew nine AHL and ten ECHL teams. Moving the goalposts helps no one, and the PWHL would be wise to stop these meaningless comparisons to men's hockey when promoting their own brands.

The PWHL is only as strong as their weakest market just like the NHL is only as strong as its weakest market. With only six teams, the margin for error is much smaller when it comes to being profitable, so the ensuring six strong, profitable markets should be the first point of order for the PWHL. Much like the NHL did, resisting the impulses to expand will be tough, but it will ensure long-term success before the next two, four, or six teams can be established.

As a fan of women's hockey, the last thing that I want to see is another failure of a league because of money problems. I know the Mark Walter Group has a lot of money behind it, but that group isn't in business to lose money with the PWHL. The league can pat itself on the back all it wants when it comes to having 188,122 people show up in arenas the league doesn't call home, but having Boston and New York as viable PWHL markets would give those Takeover Tour numbers a lot more credibility when it comes to expansion talk.

People can lament not having enough roster spots for all the talent seen in women's hockey today, but this is the same problem that the NHL faced when it was limited to six teams. What that allowed was for the best players to establish the NHL as the top league without question, and that supremacy enabled the NHL's six teams to become successful and profitable in the markets they called home. Expansion in the PWHL will happen, but it shouldn't be an option before the PWHL finds longer-term success with its original six teams in markets that will support its product day-in and day-out.

Making history for the PWHL isn't hard when it comes to what's seen on the ice. Making history off the ice when it comes to profitability and long-term success is where they should be aiming for new heights because the PWHL faces the same problems as every other professional women's league that came before them: can they generate enough money to turn a net profit for all their teams?

With each team averaging $55,000 USD per player, 24 players will cost around $1.3 million in salaries alone. 6000 fans per game for 15 games is 90,000 fans per team total, and a $30 average ticket price means that the PWHL generates $2.7 million per team. That number would almost certainly guarantee that teams are profitable when one accounts for merchandise sales and sponsorship dollars, and it's all about growing whatever the net profit is per team after all the expenses are paid. That's why having Boston and New York playing in front of less 5000 fans in their home arenas isn't good for anyone.

You'll hear fans and see journalists trot out numbers like "record crowd in Detroit" and "more tha 18,000 fans in Vancouver", but I cannot stress that playing one game in those cities on a sepcific date that everyone circles on their calendar is far different than having fifteen games on different nights of the week throughout the winter. The University of Nebraska isn't moving their volleyball team outdoors after 92,003 fans showed up to cheer the women on against Omaha at Memorial Stadium, so basing expansion on one day's attendance is a futile effort. The PWHL should know this. And likely does.

Is interest high for the PWHL in other cities? Yes, and it was for the NHL too. But the difference here is that the NHL owned their markets in those original six cities so that there was zero risk of those teams struggling once expansion happened. Those six teams provided the NHL with a rock-solid footing as a professional sports league, and the PWHL should be doing the same with their six teams.

You have to walk before you can run. Expanding in the third season of existing is a good way to have more than just two struggling markets which will only put further strain on the league, and no one wants that. Own your markets, PWHL, and then the discussion about expansion can begin. Gambling with the livelihoods of these women is not something the league should be doing.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!