Clarkson Cup

I think I'm going to try and post more opinions about news columns that I read. Of course, it would help if most of the columns I read don't originate from www.espn.com. Uh... crap, this one is going to be a sports one... but hear me out.

During the NHL lockout two years ago, the governor general of Canada suggested a silly thing. Since the NHL is not playing for the Stanley Cup, why not let the best team in women's hockey play for it? Well, because its a league of girls! Jeez... So Adrienne Clarkson decides, hey why not repeat history and create the Clarkson Cup? After all, the lore of the Stanley Cup begins with governor general Lord Stanley in the year 1893. Which leads to the topic of this blog, this story. There is a photo of the trophy here, and though it looks small it actually looks quite similar to the top of the Grey Cup.

This is actually a great idea. After all, you have quite a few storied trophies in the other sports leagues. You always associate something with the other leagues, whether it be the Stanley Cup, Lombardi trophy, Larry O' Brien trophy, and the World Series trophy, and in the CFL the Grey Cup. It only makes sense to start a trophy and start a great new tradition in women's hockey.

Anyways, back to the story. Basically there is a controversy over the trophy that Clarkson purchased. She purchased thinking it was a one and done deal. However, the artists thought otherwise. They felt they would also be entitled to royalties as the trophy would surely be put onto merchandise. After all, the Stanley Cup makes its way onto T-shirts, promotional crests, and so on. The artists felt that they would be entitled to any commercial benefits the trophy recieved. The thing is, Clarkson is donating this trophy to Hockey Canada, which is a non profit organization. As well, considering the whopping popularity of the women's hockey leagues (sarcasm...) its likely most of if not all of the possible revenue generated by the trophy would go right to the supported professional women's hockey.

Then again, if you're a songwriter and you sell a song, you generate royalty revenues. So should the same thing happen here? Or should a chance at being able to create tradition in women's hockey, knowing you created the trophy be enough? Wouldn't being able to say you created the trophy give you greater commercial opportunity anyways?

Personally, I think it should have been a one and done deal. Hockey Canada has a policy of not giving out royalties due to past royalty legal troubles. This was clearly Clarkson's intention, to give the trophy to Hockey Canada. The artists may not have known about Hockey Canada's policy, but personally I think they didn't clearly state that they wanted royalty rights. That, or Clarkson ignored it. Either way, these artists aren't going to get the royalty revenue from Hockey Canada. In the article there are three options, and in the end, Hockey Canada can just get a trophy from someone else... and that someone else can hopefully start a new tradition.

Maybe one day we'll have a girl who wanted to be the next Hayley Wickenheiser grow up to lift the Clarkson Cup.