Hacker News Reader

Comment by talmand | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious as to how hockey is any more expensive than any other sport that has player equipment and a privileged background is more beneficial to making it to the professional level than any other sport.

Could it be that black kids as a group just isn't that interested in playing hockey?

View on HN

In most of the US you can't even practice ice skating without paying money. Compare that to the number of basketball courts out there for pickup games, or fields where football could be played. It's not solely that the equipment costs more, it's that practice directly requires money, and practice time is the biggest overall driver of excellence. Professional race driving is another example of this. Tennis another notable one.

If you want a direct non-racial example of this: white hockey player origin distribution, Canadian and Scandinavian-born versus US-born. Guess where the ice is? :)

Baseball is another sport where black participation has declined in the US and the general assumption is that it's similarly because it's harder to find places to practice baseball in modern American cities (while still much more common in Latin America). Hence http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/mlb_official_story_head...

So the problem is lack of ice and not directly related to economic status? If one goes far enough north, or south, where ice is easily found for practice then the costs decline? So it's more where people choose to live versus the cost of the sport as a whole?

http://time.com/4913284/kids-sports-cost/

Organized youth sports are expensive (in the US at least), and hockey more so than others. You need a lot of equipment which your kid will keep growing out of, and then costs for ice time. Ice time is likely less expensive in big hockey regions (I have no idea), but it's always a cost. A competitive youth league team isn't practicing on a frozen lake.

So, sticks and skates as more equipment than football.

Although, someone pointed out elsewhere that good skates can be expensive and requires maintenance. I didn't consider costs of keeping skates sharp. But I'm still curious as to why high-quality expensive equipment is required specifically for hockey when it seems to me that every other sport has a large number of kids with substandard equipment. Do hockey players not use hand-me-downs or used equipment?

> So the problem is lack of ice and not directly related to economic status? If one goes far enough north, or south, where ice is easily found for practice then the costs decline? So it's more where people choose to live versus the cost of the sport as a whole?

Minors don’t choose where their parents live. If you’re getting drafted at 19 yrs of age, you’ve probably been playing since you were a kid. If you don’t live in a region with abundant natural ice, it will cost you money to skate.

Frankly, your comments comes across as the same type of empty criticism as that which often comes up when people complain about government: “If it’s really so bad, why don’t you just move to another country?” Easier to blame someone for where they live than to consider the challenges of relocating. Both criticisms are deliberately dim.

No, I'm just asking questions trying to understand how it is that hockey is apparently the most expensive sport for kids and only the highly privileged kids get to play.

I don't understand all this negativity I'm getting by just asking questions. A person couldn't possibly propose a solution to a problem without asking questions first.

What?? What point are you even trying to make, now? "More black people would play hockey if more slaves had been imported to Canada and Scandinavia"? Sure, probably, but that's now a completely irrelevant hypothetical to the posed question of "is there a economic background connection to the likelihood of bankruptcy after exposure to extreme short-lived income streams?"

Um, I think I said nothing of the kind. I believe you need to reconsider how you approach different topics. People are free to move about these days you know.

Why in the world is someone downvoting me for asking questions?

Especially given that it's Black History month, it sounds like you might be interested in watching this movie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_on_Ice_(film)

And consider this criticism of the somewhat rosier picture portrayed in that film:

https://hockeyinsociety.com/2017/03/06/soul-on-ice-the-day-t...

That criticism seems to conflate culture with skin. The NHL has a culture where bring the spotlight on individuals is frowned upon (For a long time having a high number on you sweater was considered showboaty). The article wants to call this "white culture" that is unwelcoming to people of colour. That seems wrong to me.

Skates are more expensive than cleats. Hockey sticks break or are grown out of, and decent ones are a few hundred bucks.

A quick look at Google shopping disagrees with shoes vs skates and hockey sticks. Although I'm not up to speed at what qualifies as a decent hockey stick and the required cost.

There are inexpensive youth and junior skates (<$100), but these are for younger kids. As soon as you are wearing adult sized skates (10-12yrs old), the price is many times that of cleats.

https://www.purehockey.com/c/ice-hockey-skates-senior

Ah, you provided examples unlike the other comment I responded to. Thank you for that.

But if priced low-to-high the senior skates on that site start at $64.99 and go up from there. Assuming that the lower cost skates are not worth it, you get what you pay for and all that, what's wrong with the middle tier skates that are in the $100-$200 range? How long do they last once a kid's foot doesn't outgrow it every 3-to-6 months?

A decent pair of hockey skates are $300+. You also have to take them in to get sharpened every week if you are that aggressive on them. This is $60/mth.

You also have to invest in padding, helmets, gloves, socks, and so on.

What defines a "decent pair" of skates and why do they cost $300? Wouldn't a nice pair off the shelf at less than $100 or around $50 suffice for a young kid just wanting to play hockey?

I didn't consider the maintenance aspect; the need for sharpening makes sense though.

Good skates can be baked and molded to their feet.

Cheap skates are like cheap running shoes. Yeah, they get the job done until the ill-fitted skates don't offer proper fit and support. Your kid is fine for a month, then they have welts from the cheap insoles and twisted ankles from no stability.

Just wanting to skate at the rink is one thing, practicing and chasing pucks on top of learning edge control demands proper equipment.

Just about every high school has a football team, equipment is often paid for via fundraisers/carwashes etc if it's not in the budget. Hockey is generally not a high school sport, young people have to pay to participate and do so completely on their own time outside of school.

So it's just as possible as football, but the locals decide to not offer hockey in the same way? What if predominately black high schools in large cities started demanding hockey teams?

The expenses are high and the exceptional players start very young.

Football can be played/practiced on any large grass field in any climate any time of the year. Hockey requires an indoor facility with expensive chilling and maintenance equipment if you want to play outside of a few northern cities for a few months out of the year. Inner city Houston kids will never have access to hockey facilities in any significant numbers.

Do inner city schools play basketball outside? Although, I can see maintaining a hockey rink has increased costs over a basketball court.

Ice is more expensive than fields, but there is probably a feedback loop as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com