who would've thunk that two new york teams owuld be on exact opposite sides of the spectrum

Profit List

NYR +87M
MTL +87
TOR +56
CHI +45
LAK +45
DET +31
BOS +27
EDM +17
PIT +14
VGK +14
PHI +7.9
WAS +7.7
DAL +4.5
NJD +4.1
VAN +2.9
CGY +0.4

Isles are probably losing money again even with such a good year.

SJS are just shocking on how many huge long term contracts they currently have VERSUS results

Theres about 3 teams in there that need real results in a year or two or should just fold, because they'll always lose money (OTT, FLA, ARZ)

Loss List

OTT -2.9M
MIN -6.2
WPG -7.6
STL -8.2
TBL -8.3
ANA -9.1
COL -10
CLB -10
BUF -11
NAS -13
SJS -15
CAR -15
ARI -17
FLA -29
NYI -38

How the hell did NYI lose $38M last year....

Ottawa has shown it can draw fans if it's winning, which should start to happen in a year or two. They had the lowest loss of all the loser teams, I'm not worried about them moving. FLA and ARI for sure - and I have no idea what to say about NYI. Such a storied franchise that I'd hate to suggest a move, but losing $38M last year is unacceptable.

The mind boggles.

How do you define "Small market" teams by chance?

I've just always operated on loosely defining them as teams in the Sun Belt. By that definition, only LAK, DAL, and VGK constitute as profitable small-market teams, and honestly the modern (>2000 for LA and Dallas, now for Vegas) successes of these franchise probably has them rated beyond small-market teams, no?

On a completely different note, I strongly suspect that Ottawa and Colorado are about to slingshot up these rankings over the next few years, especially if Melnyk remains true to his word and opens up the wallet for the foreseeable future. Buffalo should jump up too if they ever quit being hot garbage. Good fanbase they have, too bad the Pegula's can't run a sports franchise to save their lives.

I agree on Ottawa, but losing money while spending towards cap floor is one thing, but in 2-3 yrs time all those ENTRY level contracts end, and Ottawa will have to spend up to the cap just to keep those youngsters.

With BUF, its just a mismanaged mess that even the pegulas wont fund, so I cant see BUF (which is a small market location) making money, even with moderate success

I'd assume that it has a lot to do with their home stadium, tbh.

As much as people go on about the Coliseum, it's still a $hit hole, not super accessible, and Brooklyn obviously didn't work out either. I'd assume that they'll be fine once their new home is completed.

I think the term refers to population more than anything. As such, most people would say Calgary and Edmonton are "small market" teams as both play in markets of ~1 million people.



"Opening his wallet" will only exacerbate the losses. The Sens need to start winning and the fans will show up.

Why do you see Colorado jumping up these listings? Or Buffalo? The Sabres currently run at about 90% capacity while the Avalanche average nearly 94%. Where do you see the additional revenue coming from?

Not a good look on the league when your two most recent champions can't turn a profit.

I think some teams can afford to run an operating loss. San Jose and Winnipeg are backed by extremely wealthy owners so 15 million lost is essentially nothing.

I wouldn't be surprised if both franchises see an ownership change, but I doubt either of them move. And I'm thinking that Ottawa's revenue will skyrocket once they start winning as their attendance last year was the lowest in the league and just 65% of capacity. Running at 90% capacity (not unreasonable if they're winning) should boost revenue by $25-30M, pushing them into the top-half of the league by revenue. That'll earn them profits even when they're paying out $80M in salaries annually.

I have no idea what the answer is in Buffalo, but an ownership change would certainly be a start.

Winnipeg has over $150M debt, I doubt they'll be happy carrying losses. San Jose's debt is more like $75M.

Can you consider Canadian markets small though? The immediate populous isn't there sure, but the strength of the fanbases clearly overshadows that effect. There's also the regional affect of these teams: Edmonton (as an example) may only have a population of 1 million, but most of Saskatchewan, northern BC, and the majority of Canada's Arctic are noted Oiler fans, even ticket holders. The general fanbase is somewhere between 2-3 million and rivals the population count of some American cities.

Is this because there's a higher saturation of teams in the States, and such a regional affect cannot naturally be produced? Has hockey not grown enough in America in order for fandoms to quantifiably exceed the limits of the cities each team plays in? Maybe? I've just always found it to be such a strange metric.

I mean for reference, Pittsburgh has a population of 300k: I'd identify them as a small-market team for sure. Calgary's population is comparable with Philadelphia. If population is the only metric, some of the largest-market teams are then some of the poorest-performing teams in the league then. I imagine it's very much a multivariable system that is more representative of net revenues after a certain surplus. There are observable jenks in the revenue gains/losses you list, perhaps the definition exists there.



In the short-term, more investment in the franchise might decrease revenues, but it's an investment. Upgrades to the on-ice product and fan experience (people actually have to want to go to Senators games), increases in jersey sales, playoff revenues, it all points in the direction of Melnyk having to spend more in order to earn more.

In terms of increased revenues, playoffs. Ignoring last year, the Avalanche have only played in four rounds of playoff hockey since 2010. If the expectation is that they could do that once or twice within the next half decade and still throw in a few 2nd and 3rd round losses, there's absolutely going to be a financial surge. I don't actually know off the top of my head when the last time Buffalo made the playoffs was. I was probably in junior high.

It may have been misinterpreted by my use of "jumping up the rankings", but they'll absolutely move up. Some of it might even have to do with other teams losing revenue.

I define "small market" as locations where a) their metro populations are low, b) their locations are "generally isolated" from urbanized areas and c) few other sports franchises are located in the market. Using metro population over city proper location is a little more accurate to the size of how many people the team can reasonably draw for a game at least once or twice a weak. Being "generally isolated" means that the CSA Area isn't near any other CSA areas. For instance, El Paso is pretty populace but they're in the middle of nowhere.

Pittsburgh has a metro population of 2.3 million, 25th highest in the US, and has a MLB and NFL team. Calgary has a metro area of 1.3 million and is isolated, whereas Philadelphia has a metro area of 6 million and is in the Boswash corridor. Calgary would be a "small market" area since a few more professional teams could over saturate the market.

Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver are really the only large markets in Canada. Everywhere else I'd say is small market.

A more comprehensive definition that I'm happy to live with, thanks!

PS when's the next re-draft coming out?

Something else of note that thought exercises like this get me into is the idea of revenue sharing. We know that for a while that the top few teams have effectively bankrolled large swaths of the league.

Excluding the complicated numbers that come from all NHL revenue sources, the NHL has a net profit gain from its 31 teams - as of right now - of about $250.2M dollars. Is the propping up of the Arizona and Florida franchises via revenue sharing fundamentally harming the cultural success of the league?

I know these numbers have more to do with the immediate profitability of the individual franchises than their contribution to league revenues, but if we use the values from the Coyotes and Panthers as an approximation for how much money is pissed away on these two clubs annually, should an argument be made for contraction?

Their net losses account to $46M: not losing that total to revenue sharing, on top of NHL revenues set aside for the salary caps of these two franchises results in $209M more dollars for the remaining 30 teams to take from. Contracting from 32 teams to 30 teams, based on my shoddy math at least, could push the cap up to $88.5M without tinkering with revenues. The player pool becomes less dilute and the respective clubs would then have the runway to afford more stars. Find me a team right now that couldn't use an extra $7M to play with right now.

The question follows: is the on-ice product of a 30-team, $88.5M salary cap NHL a better product in terms of sports entertainment than the current 32-club, $81.5M cap setup? Could the league boost its revenues by simply having better teams than trying to establish a market presence in regions that have little want for continuously unsuccessful franchises?

When I stop procrastinating lol. I'll try to finish it this weekend.

How in the world are champions losing money when they can sell all the championship merchandise?

You need to look at metropolitan areas rather than city center population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_metropolitan_areas_by_population

Investment has no direct link to revenue, and it most certainly won't create a decrease in revenue.


Fair point about the playoffs. A team like Colorado should get in a few rounds and that could well clear up their loss.

All teams are losing revenue right now due to not having any fans in the stands. Do you have information indicating that Colorado and Buffalo have sources of revenue that other teams don't? That they'll somehow mitigate their losses next year when other teams cannot?

I don't think contraction will help much short-term - players will get 50% of revenue and overall revenue will decline when you ax 2 teams. I think they're better off finding profitable homes for those teams instead: Kansas City, Houston and Quebec City are all decent candidates.

Something something don't spend money on good players something something equals success. Is that how it works?

If the team is good, it's inherently going to cost more, and has a higher shot of earning that sweet, sweet playoff revenue. That represents both an investment and an improvement of the on-ice product. Ottawa could easily start attracting more and more good players with the promise of lucrative paycheques and an upgrade to its own facilities. Is the injection of ownership dollars into a team and/or its facilities not an investment by the owner? Thanks for overlooking the simple details.



I'm not sure if you're just trying to be a smug asshat, so I'll answer the question as if it were posed seriously: look at the list of profitable teams and consider how they've factored in and/or out of the playoffs over the last 5-10 years. Most of these teams have remained constant in where they sit, be it annual playoff contenders or consistently missing them over this window. There's no change in revenues, but roster improvements to teams like Colorado and Buffalo, who are expected to start trending upwards (mileage may vary).

As of right now, both clubs exist in the red, but have not had the consistent stream of playoff revenue to push them into a lesser loss or into profitable margins. That's the change I'd expect. I cannot fully reconcile why the Blues, Islanders, or Lightning are operating at such a loss. You don't need an economics degree to deduce that there's a general relationship between wins and revenue. A third variable would clearly be population of the fanbase, and it's likely the largest deciding factor comes down to the ownership themselves.

Investment does not cause a decrease in revenue. I know math is hard, but anyone should be able to understand this one.