Is the US Women’s hockey boycott over wages justified?

US women's hockey team boycott justified

The players' wage demands are too high

 Getty Images: Bruce Bennett

The U.S. women's hockey team is justified in boycotting the 2017 IIHF Women’s World Championship because of a dispute over unfair pay and lack of support from USA Hockey, the governing body of U.S. ice hockey. Despite having won gold in six of the last eight World Championships plus two Olympic silver medals, the women's team has been neglected by USA Hockey, which reportedly only pays them for six months over a four-year period, at about $1,000 a month, reports Hemal Jhaveri in USA Today's For The Win. Besides other snubs in preference for the men's team, USA Hockey spends around $3.5 million to support boys who participate in the National Team Development Program while no such program exists for girls. This boycott is about earning living wages and getting the respect they deserve, adds Jhaveri.    

Keep on reading at USA Today's ForTheWin

While it may be understandable why the U.S. women's hockey team is boycotting the women's world championships, it is not justified. The players' demands in their wage and support dispute with USA Hockey are not reasonable, writes John Smallwood in While their current salaries deserve to be renegotiated, their demands of an annual salary of $68,000 plus maternity leave, child care and other benefits is out of proportion, adds Smallwood. The players are asking to be paid as if they are full-time employees, which USA Hockey doesn't do for any players, whether female or male. As there is no high-paying professional hockey league for women, it is misguided for the women to think that USA Hockey should supplement their income so they can live as full-time professional hockey players, argues Smallwood.        

Keep on reading at
Where do you stand?
What Type of Hockey Player are You?
Want to play?

Write a response...
See what else you’re missing