The ultimate goal of the PHF and PWHPA is for a sustainable, professional women's hockey league. It's so close...and so much progress has been made...is it time for the groups to get back to the table?
The ultimate goal of the PHF and PWHPA is for a sustainable, professional women's hockey league. It's so close...and so much progress has been made...is it time for the groups to get back to the table?
This week, The Hockey News' Erin Brown and Ian Kennedy discuss the landscape of women's professional hockey, and whether or not it's time for the PHF and PWHPA to get back to the table to discuss bringing the groups together.
Ian Kennedy: There seems to be a question hanging in the air, and every day it’s not answered, that question and the air around it, gets heavier. Of course the question I'm talking about is, "when will the PWHPA announce their new league?" Or perhaps, it’s the fear of asking a second question, "what happens if the PWHPA does not announce a new league," that makes the air heavy. With the rapid advancements in both logistics and finances of the PHF, not to mention the skyrocketing talent level in the league via recent signings, it’s hard for me to understand where the divide remains in what the PWHPA wants, and what the PHF is providing. I know one of those points, and it’s a major one, is the absence of a CBA in the PHF, but that can easily be rectified. Both the PWHPA and PHF want the same thing. That’s central. With momentum rapidly shifting toward the PHF, and with the benefits the PWHPA brings to the table, I believe it’s time for the two groups to get back to the table and talk. I know we’re going to disagree on this, but let’s hear what you think first, Erin.
Erin Brown : Not yet. Some day, but not right now. I’ve been reading a lot about the history of hockey and what’s happening in the women’s game fits the narrative of the past. Conflict is rooted in the game itself, going all the way back to the late 1800s when Canada and the United States battled over how the game should be played. But these opposing views have always pushed the game forward. It’s ultimately about whose ideas, system, methods, execution have been better, on and off the ice, and we have absolutely seen this in the women’s professional game. After getting to see it all up close, I think pushing both groups back together at this very moment would be a step back. There’s more the two groups can contribute to the good of the game as two entities than one. The PHF is entering its ninth year, the PWHPA its fifth year. They’ve evolved in very different ways. Strangely, it seems like what one group does well, the other is trying to figure out. At some point both sides are going to realize an off-ice issue at hand — whether it be unionization, branding, media, merchandising, infrastructure — has already been solved by the other side. I trust there are level-headed individuals among both groups who will recognize when this point is reached. But I don’t think it is now.
Ian Kennedy: At this point, the PHF is still very much open to a merger. So that timing depends on the PWHPA, but at some point, the realization needs to come that no one group can claim to own women's hockey. To me, a merger would give PWHPA players what they want in many ways. One primary benefit would be choice. Labor is built on player rights. More cities means more choices for players to live and play where they want. A merger of the seven existing PHF teams, with four new franchises built primarily on PWHPA players, would be an all around win. With the league moving to 11 teams, an expansion twelfth to match a league like the WNBA would be a logical move when the time is right. There are ownership groups waiting, there are sponsors waiting, there are media dollars waiting, all they want is one league. As long as there is two, and one is not a formal league, investment is split, and there is market uncertainty. A merger would give investors one spot to maximize the benefit to players. It would also allow the combined, collaborative planning for the next stage, a development league. We know there is Europe, but a development league to keep women involved after college is crucial. Perhaps this becomes the new “tour” with the development league travelling to help grow the game, and to get scouted for chances to join a merged offering.
Erin Brown: I actually see a merger as a concern right now. Between the PHF and PWHPA, on their own, there could be a total 14 teams — another PHF squad through expansion of an eighth team as was discussed prior to Year 8 and a six-team league for the PWHPA. From a business standpoint, there are markets which would have to exist for both groups — Boston, Minneapolis, Montreal and Toronto — to maintain sustainability. These markets have an established fan base for women’s hockey and physical infrastructure. I can’t see investors doubling up in a single market, so any merger would have to result in contraction. The existing division is keeping more women in the game with about 50 professional opportunities in each of these markets. A theoretical merger would likely eliminate half, and the loss of anywhere from 50-100 opportunities would be terrible for the women’s game. If each side can build momentum in these steady regions, it buys time to develop and prove the viability the less established areas — places like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Washington D.C., which have clearly shown a love for the women’s game, but maybe don’t have the slam-dunk certainty of the previously mentioned cities. I think the PHF and PWHPA have each entered a stage in the process where there big issues — liveable wages, benefits, facilities, support staff — are being solved, but there’s way, way, way more nuance still in play as both sides work toward a sustainable future. Sometimes time is as necessary as money.
Ian Kennedy: That's our fundamental disagreement, a merger now would not result in less jobs, it would result in more. As you said, two teams in a single market would inevitably result in contraction, but a merger before that occurs, avoids that situation and establishes more markets, more choice, more opportunities for sponsors, and a wider fan base. If you do it now, no one loses jobs. If you do it after a second league is launched, eventually one team in each doubled market has to go. Adding in nearby locations is still an option. Next to Montreal, you add Ottawa. Next to Toronto you can add in Hamilton, or Mississauga, or a little farther out in London. Instead of another in Minnesota, you branch to Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay, or Madison.
Plus, the numbers of a six team league for the PWHPA don't add up at this moment. Right now, there are only legitimately four teams of PWHPA players. There’s been attrition every year, and despite a larger class of NCAA players this year, four teams is the max, unless they have 50 new players signed up we don’t know about. And that's if all the players in the PWHPA are willing to up and move their families to a city they're drafted by this Fall. With that in mind, it’s the seven PHF teams, plus four PWHPA teams, and who knows, maybe they mutually agree on a twelfth team and we now have more, not less, jobs.
It's time for this verging on irrational division to end. The PHF has done just about everything the PWHPA has asked…and more. And the PWHPA has done, or is close to doing, a crucial piece of work the PHF doesn’t have in creating a CBA. Both have sponsors and supporters. Both have household name players. When you bring together those items, and the new investors who are waiting, the recipe for incredible success is there. Right now, I firmly believe the tug of war is significantly slowing growth of the women’s professional game, and the groups need to look across the line and see that even though they're pulling in different directions, they both have the same goal. All it takes is for them to stop, talk, and start pulling together.
Canadian national team players are already voicing their desire to join the PHF. The sticking point? These hockey players have been taught to sacrifice anything for their team for years, and they’re concerned about how their personal decision to go will impact their PWHPA teammates who refuse to consider the option. The opportunity is ripe for a merger, and it will create opportunities.
I just believe the mutual goal has always been the same, and now the mutual path is so close. It’s time for the PWHPA to make the phone call and get back to the table.
You say "no," I say "yes." It's an ever evolving situation, and I’m sure we’ll be revisiting this discussion again in the future.