With the actual crisis and the realization that having hockey teams in the American South might not be a great business model after all, Quebec City has started dreaming about a possible return of its beloved Nordiques. In this context, I would like to propose a different perspective on our national sport. In my humble and quite utopian opinion, NHL teams could very well become tools to promote some key values and play a positive role in our communities.
Will the Nordiques come back to Quebec City?
With a Canadian dollar around 70 cents, increasing player salaries, no salary cap and a very old arena (the Colisée holds only 15 000 seats and its corporate boxes are few in number and poor in quality), the owners took the decision to sell the team. The Nordiques moved to Denver in 1995, became the Avalanche and won two Stanley Cups since then (yes, it still hurts…). At the time, both the Federal and the Provincial governments had refused to pay for a new building. In the last 15 years, the economic situation has dramatically changed, the city suffers very little from the actual crisis and the Canadian dollar is very strong. In this context, the actual mayor has decided to make the construction of a new arena a priority. Talks in town are now centered on finding a new owner that would bring the NHL back to la Vieille Capitale. However, one might ask, are rich individuals or powerful corporations the only mean to re-establish professional hockey in Quebec City? I think not.
We should reconsider our obsession with privately owned enterprises. Our collective lack of imagination has let us to accept the precept that everything having the potential of generating a profit must be owned and controlled by private companies. We can and should reconsider this conception, and as everything in life, it starts with hockey…
Like almost 6 million people in Canada, I am a member of Les Caisses Populaires Desjardins, a financial cooperative. That way I keep my money within a collective entity that is acting in accordance to my values and social preoccupations. Why can’t I do the same as a hockey fan?
The NHL recently bought the Coyotes for only 140 million dollars. Let say that price is underestimated (after all Balsillie did offer 242 million), a more accurate price for an NHL franchise would turn around 225 millions dollars. If you divide this amount by 100 000 shares, it means you could become a member of the Nordiques Coop for 2500 dollars (or the Winnipeg Jets Coop if you live in Manitoba). Within this framework, many management models are possible, but South American soccer clubs offer some interesting parameters. Most of them are non-profit organizations and members vote every few years to choose the President. This structure makes it more difficult to compete with rich European Clubs but tickets are maintained at a reasonable price and teams dedicate a lot of energy forming young players through their amateur teams. Far from being perfect, these soccer clubs nonetheless show that alternatives models are available.
Hockey is by far the most important sport in Canada and a central part of our collective identity. If we cherish that sport so much, why do we leave its control to profit driven companies? All the financial resources actually spent on tickets, team products and indirectly on TV shares do not have to go to rich owners; they could actually be kept in the community and contribute to our local economies. Moreover, a coop is essentially a democratic organization. Having a large number of people actively participating in a democratic process linked to our national sport could contribute to better appreciation of democratic life. Finally, members could influence the values defended and the actions taken by their hockey club. This way, it would be easier to make the people in charge more accountable to their fan base, not only in hockey terms but also in terms of social responsibility.
Realistically, Winnipeg or Quebec will not see the return of the NHL in a near future, even less with a business model based on collective ownership. The very conservative NHL would probably oppose the integration of a cooperative. We should nonetheless consider our potential as communities to control a better part of our collective lives; as citizens, consumers, and even as hockey fans.
Great post Martin. I really think we need to revisit the Coop model in our economy. It seems to work well for credit unions and outdoors sporting goods stores, so why don’t we use them for our food supply, our internet connections, cell phone providers and even our sports teams – I can’t imagine a coop could do a worse job as owners of the Toronto Maple Leafs. I’ve always liked Coops as a great way to keep market forces in play, while increasing the focus on customer service (I’m thinking of my internet and cell phone providers here), sustainable social and environmental practices and better labour relations (worker coops are great models too).
Thanks for you comment Jim. I totally agree with you. The idea of the post was to take an extreme case to show the wider use we could make of coops. Cell phone and internet providers could also make a strong case…
As a member of the Board of Directors for Vancouver’s oldest – and coolest – Food Co-operative, I have to say that I like this. A lot. And it’s painfully simple, folks, especially when owning a hockey team is used as the hilariously extreme example; the East End Food Co-op (www.east-end-food.coop) has seen tough times in its 30-plus years – as did les Nordiques and Winnipeg Jets – but, due to an overwhelming sense of ownership and community, the people who owned the business refused to let it fail. It’s always nice when the owners of something actually have a stake in it – or perhaps are actually customers of the product(s) or service(s). Very rarely does the co-op experiment wiggle its way out of the non-profit world, though…
Now, I’m not saying the Harvard Business Review agrees with you guys, but this article is worth a read. Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management, talks about how 21st century businesses are designed to maximize shareholder value, even if “shareholding has become a short-term and opaque thing. Program traders shift positions daily based on tiny price variations and most share certificates are held in ‘street form’ — i.e., not registered to an individual because they are owned by a fiduciary institution like a mutual or pension fund that stands between the corporation and the shareholder.” His article nicely outlines the role community – or lack thereof – has to do with this perceived or real (depending on who you ask) end of the love affair with business. Check out his first post in the series here: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/201/02/why_business_has_lost_our_resp.html.
As with History, it turns out community matters, too…