Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

[David De Remer]

I've written the following letter in response to Caroline Murphy's post on ESPNw. I'm sure we have other threads that have touched on this subject, but I wanted to give it some more emphasis.

----------------

Dear Caroline,

I'm sure you meant well, but your ESPNw post "women's ice hockey needs more parity" infuriated me, especially coming from a recent Yale women's hockey captain. The idea that women's hockey or any sport should be dropped from the Olympics due to lack of parity should not be considered acceptable by anyone, and it has no basis in past Olympic precedent. IOC President Jacques Rogge's 2010 comments to that effect should be chastised, not accepted. Your post buys into all kinds of sexist myths propagated by the mainstream media. ESPNw should be working against these myths. Dropping a sport from the Olympics is not a light subject. What happened to softball, both the IOC's decision and the inaccurate & sexist coverage it received from the mainstream media, was fundamentally unfair. Successful athletes should never be blamed for having their sport dropped from the Olympics, but your post endorses the reprehensible idea that USA and Canada must lose someday in women's ice hockey for the good of the sport.

Your post regurgitates the myth that in 2006 there was serious talk of women's hockey being cut like softball due to lack of parity. Though this narrative was presented ad nausea by media members who hated covering Olympic women's hockey and wished it was dropped from the Olympics, it has no basis in reality. There was never any comment from the IOC suggesting that women's hockey was in danger at the time, and the idea that softball was cut due to lack of parity has no basis in reality either.

The idea that softball's ouster has little to do with lack of parity unfortunately requires more discussion, since the mainstream media has done such a horrible job of covering it. The movement to oust softball began back in 2002, soon after Jacques Rogge became IOC President. He was looking to cut costs, and baseball and softball were suitable targets because each required their separate facilities and both were less popular in Europe than everywhere else in the world. Softball also suffered from getting bundled with baseball as its female counterpart, while baseball suffered from MLB's unwillingness to free players to complete and later from steroid scandala. Lack of parity had little to do with softball's ouster back when it was initially targeted for elimination by Rogge in 2002. You wouldn't know it from reading any Beijing Olympics coverage, but the USA softball lost three times in the 2000 Sydney Olympics en route to the gold medal -- hardly a sport that suffered from lack of parity. Sure, the dominance of USA softball in 2004 Athens was cited as an ex-post rationalization of softball's ouster, but in reality it had little to do with why the sport was cut. Yet it was the lack-of-parity explanation for softball's ouster that received all the coverage from the media, and every USA softball player in Beijing 2008 had to answer repeated absurd and inaccurate questions about their dominance being responsible for their sports' exclusion from the Olympics. Your post seems to envision a future in which it's okay for U.S. and Canadian women's hockey to be subject to the same horrific and sexist treatment. I say it's sexist because the media puts only women's sports on the chopping block for lack of parity.

Throughout Olympic history, the idea a sport should be cut from the Olympics has originated from sexist reporters covering women's sports they find boring, not from the IOC. Rogge's comments to the contrary against women's hockey in 2010 were a disturbing break from this IOC precedent. It's a fundamental principle of athletic competition that the organizing body should do everything in their power to encourage the best of all competitors. Cutting sports for lack of parity goes against that principle. Moreover, announcing that a sport is on the chopping block for lack of parity can be a self-fulfilling prophecy because it can discourage investment if federations believe it will be cut anyway. Thankfully, the cutting of Olympic sports has been rare, and no sports had been cut since the 1930s prior the ouster of baseball and softball, and there's little evidence either sport was cut for lack of parity. Rogge's comments on women's hockey in 2010 were unprecedented, dangerous, and sexist. They should be called out as such, not merely regurgitated as the way the world works.

At this moment, there's no basis whatsoever for cutting women's hockey from the Olympics without invoking a double standard for women. Men's hockey was just as non-competitive in its first four Olympics as women's hockey, with Canada and the USA being totally dominant. Unlike the case of softball, women's hockey does not require a separate facility from baseball (though the baseball and softball federations will seek to use the same facility in future Olympic proposals). Men's hockey and women's hockey are the only true team sports in the Winter Olympic Games, and to cut women's hockey would be a fatal blow to any semblance of gender equity in the Olympic movement.

ESPNw should be presenting the facts about softball's ouster and the fundamental immorality and sexism of cutting Olympic sports for lack of parity, rather than becoming part of the problem.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Well done David. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to address the issue and sincerely hope your excellent letter gets the attention it's due and has the desired, positive effect on those members of the media...and a little enlightenment enters their current narrow, restricted point of view.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Well Done Indeed.

 

[puckskillz]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Great response. Is Ms. Murphy "officially" covering womens' hockey for ESPNw? Is she becoming a "defacto" spokeswomen through her opinion pieces?

 

[ARM]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Nicely stated. I wonder what is more detrimental to the sport of women's hockey: to be treated in a sexist fashion, as by the Rogge; or to be totally ignored, as by ESPN.

 

[taz91]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Very well put David. I'm sure ESPN gave it the same attention they give all sports not called NCAA football and basketball, MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL. It was probably filed in the circular file to be dumped at the end of the night by the janitor.

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I heard back from Caroline. She says she fully agrees with me and she was already in the process of writing a follow-up piece.

Is Ms. Murphy "officially" covering womens' hockey for ESPNw? Is she becoming a "defacto" spokeswomen through her opinion pieces?

espnW's content strategy doesn't seem to involve "covering" sports in the traditional beat sense. Generally they produce content that caters more towards female athletes and women's sports fans. This involves occasional contributions from athletes themselves. CSTV.com used such contributions for a while before they got swallowed by CBS. Caroline's other work included writing about her experiences playing post-collegiately in Europe and a heartfelt post in memory of Mandi.

I wouldn't say she's any kind of "defacto" spokeswoman until espnW gets more traffic. I'd like to see it become successful, and I believe covering an issue like Rogge's sexism well is one way espnW can prove it actually provides value relative to the rest of the sports media.

For a potential contrast, remember how ESPN covered Rogge's comments back in Feb 2010. Howard Bryant's column on the issue actually came to a sensible conclusion, using the 1992 Dream Team as an argument against cutting sports due to lack of parity, though he ignores the role of sexism in why no one ever suggested cutting men's basketball. But the worst part of the coverage was that it was teased in the AP News story with the kicker "Canadian dominance in the short term might have doomed the sport in the long term" and the web page title was "Canadian women's hockey victory bad for the sport?" This is the same kind of victim-blaming that softball has been subjected to for years (and still is, see this 2010 column example), and I don't want women's hockey be subject to the same.

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

J.A. Rosenberg, who maintains a fine blog and twitter feed often discussing women's hockey, made the following valuable comments.

The recent piece by Caroline Murphy for ESPNW and the response by David De Remer have opened an important discussion about women’s sports in the Olympics and the media coverage thereof. From my perspective, we risk getting stuck in a paradigm where we allow the IOC and its male, Eurocentric views of sport to dominate the discourse on either side. Although De Remer takes Murphy to task for aping the IOC line, which was surely rooted in sexism and the attempt to find an excuse to exclude women’s sports, my sense is that Murphy was actually saying something different. She was expressing the sense of embarrassment many in the women’s hockey community feel that more teams can’t mount a spirited challenge to the U.S.-Canadian hegemony. She is worried that the sport won’t be taken seriously if it keeps being a two-team affair. She happened to couch this worry in unfortunate terms, by seeming to buy into the media rhetoric that lack of parity is what got softball cut and could get women’s hockey cut by the Olympics. What actually happened with softball, though, was that it was a package deal with baseball. Baseball was probably a victim of both anti-U.S. sentiment and a focus on Europe that works to the detriment of sports popular elsewhere. There is, after all, an entire separate Olympics dedicated to sports that can only be played in extremely cold weather and most of which were developed in Europe. Baseball, with its world popularity stemming mostly from Latin America, doesn’t have much pull.

De Remer is right that we expect more from a women’s sports site than a repetition of the tropes we find elsewhere in the media. He is also right that this discourse helps discourage federations in other nations from investing in their teams, even to the small extent they already do. However, there must be a way to talk about our frustrations with the parity issue. It must also be possible to discuss the worry that non-competitive tournaments will give the IOC cover for cutting women’s hockey. Neither of these need necessarily feed into sexist narratives. If we proceed from a position of respect for the sport, we can have more frank and open dialogue.

My response:

I fully agree that Caroline’s heart was in the right place, and that she was hoping for a closer World Women’s Championship for all the reasons you describe. I agree there needs to be honest discussion about the parity issue.

But I will always criticize any parity discussion that suggests (1) any sport lacking parity deserves to be dropped from the Olympics (2) we should root for the successful national programs to fail, or make these athletes feel guilty for their success.

My assessment of the softball experience is that the “victim of their own success” narrative became dominant, while the injustice of dropping softball in the first place was mostly forgotten. Instead I would like to see the discussion of women’s hockey parity proceed as follows:

(1) end any discussion of dropping the sport from the Olympics. The only way I would sympathize with this sentiment is if the US or Canada were guilty of holding back the development of the rest of the world, but that’s hardly the case.
(2) other countries’ hockey federations should be shamed for any relative lack of support of women, not the US and Canada for their dominance.
(3) we should be rooting for all nations to continue to improve and for the European nations to close the gap by hitting a moving target.

I don’t buy the much-repeated claim that their was a silver lining for the U.S. loss to Sweden in 2006 because it was good for women’s hockey. I’ll never attach such value to any particular game outcome. I would cheer for signs that Sweden or any other country can compete with a fully functional US or Canada program on a sustained basis, and that one result clearly did not pass that test. Others have argued that result was necessary for IOC politics and keeping the game alive, but that result didn’t stop Rogge from threatening to drop the sport 4 years later. Similarly, Japan beating USA softball for the 2008 Beijing Gold ultimately didn’t do much to help softball’s reinstatement ambitions in 2016. So I see no reason to ever cheer for the dominant programs to lose purely for political reasons, and this contrasts with the message I expect most readers took from Caroline’s post.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

From the Canadian Press.

Improvements minor, but future brighter for women hockey players of the world
By Donna Spencer, The Canadian Press – 5 days ago

ZURICH — Women's hockey took tiny steps forward on the road to parity at the 2011 women's world hockey championships.

Host Switzerland was within an overtime goal of reaching a semifinal. Russia, the host of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games, played for a medal for the first time in a decade.

Finland made Canada sweat in a preliminary game and for half of a semifinal. The Finns know what they have to do to beat Canada one day. Their strategy, however, requires a goalie who can make 50-plus saves and some lucky goals on the few chances they get.

The top three countries from the 2010 Olympics stayed top three. The U.S. earned revenge on Canada for the loss in Vancouver by beating them 3-2 in overtime in Monday's final. The Finns took the bronze.

The gap between the U.S. and Canada and the rest of the world is a chasm that will not be bridged in time for the next Winter Olympics.

"I really believe you're going to see minor changes for the next four years, but the next four after that is when you'll see the biggest change," said Melody Davidson, who coached Canada to back-to-back Olympic gold medals.

The 12-0 and 13-1 scores that draw criticism of women's hockey won't be eliminated by 2014. Canada and the U.S. have built a huge lead on the rest of the world in the 21 years since the first women's world championship in player numbers and player development.

Other countries can't hothouse talent fast enough to catch them by 2014 because it takes eight to 10 years to develop an elite hockey player.

What women's hockey has going for it now, and what it didn't have prior to the 2010 Winter Olympics, is the desire by powerful hockey people to make the game better.

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge did female hockey players a favour when he said after the Vancouver Games that the women's game had to become more competitive.

The IIHF launched its four-year, C$2.1-million plan "Women's Hockey to Sochi 2014 and beyond,'' at these world championships with a coaching symposium involving 23 countries. The next step of that plan is mixing players and coaches from different countries at a camp in Bratislava, Slovakia, in July.

A key component of the IIHF's plan targets female players at the under-18 level because they are the ones who, if nurtured properly, can close the gaps in the future.

"The challenge isn't the people here. It's who is filling the spots below," Davidson explained. "Where those 12 and 13 year olds are right now and where they will be in four to six years, is when I think we'll see real depth."

Davidson was among the speakers at the symposium. Now Hockey Canada's female scout, Davidson gave a presentation on what Canada did in the four years heading into the 2010 Olympics.

She conducted another session on coaching the female athlete. Tanya Foley, the IIHF's new director of female hockey, says Russian coaches were seen patting their players on the back more after that session.

The NHL has hired former WNBA executive Val Ackerman as a consultant to study how it can help women's hockey. Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke says his club has struck a task force to do the same.

Federations are hiring staff to run female hockey programs. Sweden recently appointed former Olympian Maria Rooth as head of women's hockey.

"Now the IIHF, the NHL, all the federations are thinking about how we can develop this game," said U.S. defenceman Angela Ruggiero, who is on the IOC's athletes' commission. "There's been strides, but it's only been a year. I don't think expectations should be too high just yet."

Countries such as Kazakhstan, which was relegated to the second-tier world championship, simply have to get more females in the game. The IIHF says there are currently 86 women registered with Kazakhstan's hockey association.

Canada, with over 80,000 females playing, and the U.S. with over 60,000, have huge feeder systems other countries currently can't match.

The IIHF is providing recruitment materials to federations as part of its plan. Until more women get into the game in Europe and Asia, expect to see the North Americans out in front for some time.

"If you took an individual sport, maybe you'd see big strides in four years, but you're talking about a whole team," Ruggiero pointed out.

"There are social differences here we're battling, not just a difference in style of play. Women aren't allowed or encouraged to play hockey in other parts of the world. They might have an outstanding men's team, but they don't have the same support on the women's side."

Ruggiero says she's using her position on the athletes' commission to educate IOC members about what is going on in the women's game.

"I think real hockey fan understands development take time, but it's completely possible with the right amount of investment," she said.

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

The more interesting article from Donna is the one focusing on Foley here.

Here's the key part:

The IIHF was prompted, some would say pushed, by Rogge's comments to address the large gaps between countries in women's hockey and create more parity. "With everything that came out of Vancouver with Dr. Rogge's comments, it was the best thing that could have happened to women's hockey — having somebody in a position outside the sport say 'hey, you need to look at this' and they did," Foley said. "It brought attention to something that needs attention brought to it."

If the ultimate policy implemented by Rogge was that the IIHF needed to spend more on developing women's hockey, or force its members to spend more on women's hockey, or else be dropped, then I'm fine with that. The IIHF should have been doing more anyway, and I'm fine with such a push.

But what Rogge actually said was that unless the OUTCOMES were closer within 8 years or so the sport would be dropped. This is what's dangerous for the sport and fundamentally unfair for the U.S. and Canadian athletes who aspire to do their best every day. While it seems like Rogge's comments are positive overall, I've yet to hear him retract the dangerous part of the comments, and I have no doubt we're going to hear about them again and again in 2014. Americans and Canadians will be asked about whether they're dooming their sport every time they blow someone out in Sochi.

 

[west]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

As long as Canada and the U.S.' centralization budgets are longer than the IIHF's four year plan budget it will be a slow go to bridge that gap in talent and depth.

 

[ARM]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

As long as Canada and the U.S.' centralization budgets are longer than the IIHF's four year plan budget it will be a slow go to bridge that gap in talent and depth.

More than centralization budgets, I think it comes down to the number of ten-year-old girls skating around hockey rinks in each country.

 

[giwan]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

More than centralization budgets, I think it comes down to the number of ten-year-old girls skating around hockey rinks in each country.

Its culture and the 10,000 hour rule.

 

[west]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

More than centralization budgets, I think it comes down to the number of ten-year-old girls skating around hockey rinks in each country.

That's indeed a part of it, but only a part. Canada dwarf's the other countries in men's hockey too but the top end talent keeps it relatively equal at the high end. Canada and the U.S. having the ability to take their best players and have them train like professionals will always prevent that gap from being filled. Depth will always be an issue because of the number of players, but the professional aspect will separate that top tier. The only time

And I suppose the # of players also comes into it when it comes to getting money. Having over 80,000 girls playing hockey is definitely more attractive to sponsors than 8,000 or even 18,000.

 

[D2D]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I saw this posted in another forum I follow - what do folks think?

"One of the USA Hockey videos I recently watched had the Canadian 'Own the Podium' guy (who is actually a Brit).
Anyway, studying success in sports at the world level has shown this truism:
In order to excel at the world level, you need two of the following three - money, culture of the sport, and population.
If you only have one it isn't enough."

 

[sharkie]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I notice there are a lot more Swede's coming to play at D-I and D-III level universities. The Fins have done this for a number of years. This should help increase their level of play.
What Rogge needs to see is some semblence of parity. Another thought is what about a country forming a team of ex-patriots children/grand children to help close the gap. There must be a number of Italian-Canadians/Italian-Americans that could help make another strong team. Just a thought. Tell me if I am crazy

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I notice there are a lot more Swede's coming to play at D-I and D-III level universities. The Fins have done this for a number of years. This should help increase their level of play.
What Rogge needs to see is some semblence of parity. Another thought is what about a country forming a team of ex-patriots children/grand children to help close the gap. There must be a number of Italian-Canadians/Italian-Americans that could help make another strong team. Just a thought. Tell me if I am crazy

Well, one way men's hockey became more competitive in the 1930s is by fielding a "Great Britain" team of Canadian-born players that won the gold medal.

 

[ARM]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

Well, one way men's hockey became more competitive in the 1930s is by fielding a "Great Britain" team of Canadian-born players that won the gold medal.

While that may make for a better tournament, it really does nothing to improve the international growth of the sport. If home-grown Brits have been a factor in hockey in the Olympics during my lifetime I confess that I missed it. A group of young ladies whose ancestors were born in France or Italy could form a team capable of competing for a medal, but if the end result isn't an increase in hockey fervor in those countries for females, what is gained other than more opportunities for North-American players.

 

[David De Remer]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I agree. Now if such a strategy is necessary as a last-resort measure to appease some fools in charge, then I'm all for it. But at this point my strategy is to most clearly explain why the comments of the person in charge are foolish.

 

[OnMAA]

Re: Parity and Olympic Women's Hockey

I notice there are a lot more Swede's coming to play at D-I and D-III level universities. The Fins have done this for a number of years. This should help increase their level of play.
What Rogge needs to see is some semblence of parity. Another thought is what about a country forming a team of ex-patriots children/grand children to help close the gap. There must be a number of Italian-Canadians/Italian-Americans that could help make another strong team. Just a thought. Tell me if I am crazy

There are quite a few nationalities to which you could apply this.
- Lots of Ukranian decendents in Manitoba and Canada West with great hockey talents.
- Many German and Dutch decendents in many parts of Canada.
- Many French decendents in Quebec, the Maritimes and Northern Ontario.
- Many Italian decendents all over North America.

I think this could work for a "short term fix", but for it to work and it to have a longer lingering affect all these players should start playing overseas as part of this approach to help grow and teach the game.