Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpag20 Download by: [University of Central Arkansas], [Professor Stephen O'Connell] Date: 24 November 2015, At: 06:58 Papers in Applied Geography ISSN: 2375-4931 (Print) 2375-494X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpag20 The Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey: 1970–2010 Stephen O'Connell To cite this article: Stephen O'Connell (2015): The Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey: 1970–2010, Papers in Applied Geography, DOI: 10.1080/23754931.2015.1095790 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2015.1095790 Published online: 20 Nov 2015. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data
Transcript
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpag20
Download by: [University of Central Arkansas], [Professor Stephen O'Connell] Date: 24 November 2015, At: 06:58
The Production and Migration Geographies ofProfessional Hockey: 1970–2010
Stephen O'Connell
To cite this article: Stephen O'Connell (2015): The Production and MigrationGeographies of Professional Hockey: 1970–2010, Papers in Applied Geography, DOI:10.1080/23754931.2015.1095790
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23754931.2015.1095790
The Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey:1970–2010
Stephen O’ConnellUniversity of Central Arkansas
Thirty years have passed since the National Hockey League (NHL) pushed out of its northern cradle. From 1942 to 1967, the NHL wasconfined to six cities, all northeast of Chicago; by 1979 the league had expanded into nontraditional hockey areas. Hockey enthusiastsencouraged the expansion of franchises to non-traditional markets as a significant step in broadening the base of hockey fans in the UnitedStates. Although studies have indicated a relationship between professional hockey presence and participation in recreational leagues, anothersignificantmeasuremight be contribution of nontraditional regions to professional leagues. This study examines the origins of players in theNHL from 1970 to 2010. Production from countries, state-level areas, and county-level areas is evaluated using comparisons of localproduction to population. Alongwithmeasures of spatial connectivity between players and teams, this analysis examines whether hockey hasemerged as a national sport or if it remains regionalized. Data indicate a strengthening of production beyond traditional hockey regions withconcentrations around existing franchises. The dominance of Canada in professional hockey has waned, as the United States and Europeannations have seen robust increases. Production in nontraditional regions remains marginal, however, even after several decades of hockeypresence in those areas.Keywords: labormigration, regional identity, sports geography.
P opular images of the game of hockey are moreclosely associated with locations such as northern
New England, Minnesota, or the Canadian Prairiesthan warmer regions of the North American conti-nent. Much of this comes from the history of thedevelopment of the sport, during which its physicalnecessities required the long, cold winters possibleonly in the northern tier of states or in Canada. Theinvention and diffusion of manmade ice surfaces andinterior air conditioning lessened that regional con-nection, but the sport seems to maintain its regionalappeal.Hockey promoters in popular media point to the
expansion of professional hockey leagues into nontra-ditional regions of the United States as evidence for abroadening appeal for the sport (Mirtle 2015). It is dif-ficult to argue with the raw increase in hockey acrossthe United States. During the 1969–1970 season, theNational Hockey League (NHL) had twelve teamsand fielded a total of 241 players; by the 2009–2010season, the NHL had grown to thirty teams and 738players. When the next tier of professional hockey isincluded (the American Hockey League [AHL],Central Hockey League [CHL], East Coast HockeyLeague [ECHL], and International Hockey League[IHL]), the numbers are even more impressive: 811players on thirty-six teams in 1970 grew to 2,791 play-ers on 101 teams by 2010. Since that time, the smallerleagues have witnessed dramatic shakeups, from theemergence of teams in new hockey cities to the col-lapse of the entire CHL.Examining the spatial distribution of teams provides
a clear visual of the change in professional hockeyacross North America, especially in the NHL. Only
two years prior to the 1969–1970 season, the leagueresponded to outside pressure from competing leaguesby expanding beyond the original six cities that hadheld stable for twenty-five years. Six new teams wereadded, including teams in St. Louis, San Francisco,and Los Angeles, far beyond traditional hockeyregions. Expansion and team relocation in the last twodecades of the twentieth century brought the NHL toFlorida, Texas, and Arizona. As the map in Figure 1shows, minor professional hockey teams have intro-duced the sport to smaller southern cities such asShreveport, Memphis, and Amarillo.The practical result of this expansion has been an
increased exposure to ice hockey in areas not familiarwith the sport. Commercial ice rinks, hockey camps,and other public programs are extensions of thatgrowth of hockey. Young hockey fans in these areasnow have a greater chance of developing the properskills to play the game, and therefore, a greater chanceof playing professional-level ice hockey. Shropshire(1995) stated that for a professional sports franchise tosurvive in an area, there must first be a segment of thepopulation actively interested in that sport. Becauselocal interest in a sport can often be dependent onwhat the local community has put into the sport interms of talent, new player production from theseareas can be the key to continued hockey support.DeChano (2000), in reviewing the expansion of theNHL in the 1980s and 1990s, suggested “[t]he contri-bution of the Sunbelt area will undoubtedly increasein the years to come” (29). This study is designed toexamine whether the expansion of professional hockeyinto nontraditional hockey regions has, in fact,resulted in a greater amount of local player
development, represented by player production in thetop hockey league. Using measures of relative produc-tion—both in raw numbers and in population-adjustedformats—and analysis of statistically significant spatialclusters, a shifting pattern of hockey production inNorth America is revealed.
Sports and Geographic Study
Early examinations of sports geography focused onmajor team sports of the United States. Football andbaseball dominate many studies, just as they dominatethe U.S. sports landscape. Rooney’s (1974) A Geography
Figure 1 NHL team locations, 1970 and 2010.
2 O’Connell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
of American Sport is a seminal work in the study of U.S.sports geography, and it ushered in a wave of commen-tary on the place of sport in society and culture. Focusturned toward human ecology, with sport landscapesexamined as representations of place-specific culture.Identifying regional patterns of sport and linking theseto underlying cultural and social phenomena definedsports geography in the decades following Rooney(Rooney, Zelinsky, and Louder 1982; Bale 1982, 1988;Raitz 1987, 1995; Rooney and Pillsbury 1992).For many, this basic description of the geography
of sports regions failed to capture the emergingregional and global implications of sports in society(Bale 1992, 1996). With ever-increasing influencefrom studies of economic globalization, high-skilledlabor migration, and the sociological impacts ofcultural diffusion, research on the culture of sportshas been far more complex in recent years. Sportsmigrants are placed alongside other economicmigrants and typologies of migration are describedfor individuals in a variety of circumstances(Maguire 1996; Crossan 2008; Love and Kim2011). These studies are much more likely to exam-ine the impacts of player movement, both in termsof direction and intent, on the players, their teams,national or regional leagues, and the sport itself(Donnelly 1996; Carter 2013).As these studies have taken on more global issues
in sport, they have focused primarily on sports withbroad global appeal. Association football (soccer)player migration has been a significant focus, as itaffects labor pools across numerous continents andhas the potential to influence sports structure inmany nations (McGovern 2000; Storey 2011;Richardson et al. 2012). Player migration is placedin the context of new global models of interna-tional labor movements, with associated considera-tions of migrant acculturation within their adoptivenations, influence on local talent development, andimpact on the practice of the sport itself includedin studies (Poli 2010).Because of its low profile in the U.S. sports land-
scape, fewer studies exist on ice hockey specifically;however, some relevant contributions are present. Fol-lowing work by Rooney, students from his departmentat Oklahoma State University produced early spatialanalyses of ice hockey (Russell 1974; Henzel 1990;O’Connell 2000). More recent studies have broughtthe new contexts of international labor migration toice hockey player movements, with examination of therole of Canadian players in European ice hockeyleagues (Elliot and Maguire 2008, 2011). For thosefocused on measuring player development, much ofthe research has been directed at the effect of relativebirthdates on player potential and elite team selection(Wattie et al. 2007; Deaner, Lowen, and Cobley2013), although several studies have also explored theimportance of geographic origins in player success(Cote et al. 2006; Bruner et al. 2011).
The Growth of Professional Hockey inNorth America
Hockey has long been associated with Canada, eventhough its origins are somewhat more complicated.Sources have traced forms of the sport to NativeAmerican and European cultures; variations of thesewere adapted by Canadians in the mid-nineteenth cen-tury to be played by teams on a surface of ice (Russell1974; McKinley 2009). The climate of Canada allowedfor widespread participation in the sport, from largecities to small prairie towns. This interest was theimpetus for the formation of numerous amateurleagues, from which the first professional leagues wereformed in the late nineteenth century to facilitatecompetition among amateur teams. The prize trophyof hockey, the Stanley Cup, donated in 1893, wasawarded to the premier Canadian amateur team at theend of each season. After the turn of the century, pro-fessional hockey organizations began operation, thefirst of which—the original IHL—began in 1904 withteams in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ontario (Pollak1998). Although many in Canada resented the idea ofprofessional hockey players competing for the prizedStanley Cup, by 1907 the Eastern Canada HockeyAssociation, a Stanley Cup qualifying league, beganallowing professional skaters on its teams. Subsequentleagues followed, including the Ontario ProfessionalHockey League (the first fully professional league),the Pacific Coast Hockey League, and the NationalHockey Association (Pollak 1998). The geographicextent of these early leagues illustrates the distinctregional appeal of the early game. With the exceptionof the International and Pacific Coast Hockey Leagues,with teams in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and Washing-ton and Oregon, respectively, the early professionalleagues were exclusively Canadian. Decades of amateurplay at all levels of Canadian society had created anextraordinary amount of hockey talent for these leagues.Even as teams moved to adjacent areas of the UnitedStates, theywerefilled primarily byCanadian-born players(Alexander 1999).In 1917, the most successful of the professional
leagues, the National Hockey League, had its begin-ning. By 1926 the NHL had monopolized the profes-sional ranks of hockey, and by 1942 it had emerged asa stable, six-team league until expansion doubled thesize of the league in 1967. Canadian players were stillthe stars of the league, yet only two Canadian cities—Toronto and Montr�eal—hosted franchises; Boston,New York, Detroit, and Chicago rounded out the“Original Six” cities of the NHL. These U.S. citieswere among the six largest metropolitan areas in thecountry at the time—Los Angeles and Philadelphiawere the other two—and were in close proximity totheir Canadian counterparts. Although the cities werefurther south, similar public interest existed for wintersports, including hockey, and this translated into sup-port for professional teams (Riess 1998).
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
By the mid-1960s the NHL realized a need forexpansion to new markets. In 1967, Philadelphia,Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, andOakland received teams in the league’s first expansionsince 1934 (Danielson 1997). League administratorsrecognized two factors that they felt would help newexpansion. First, talent levels were high enough inminor leagues to support more teams. Second, otherregions were ready to support the game of hockey.The NHL lost its monopoly on the highest level ofprofessional hockey in 1972 with the inception of theWorld Hockey Association (WHA). During the plan-ning stages of the WHA, the NHL added teams inBuffalo, Washington, DC, Atlanta, and on LongIsland, in hopes of countering the effects of the newleague in what were perceived as marginal hockeymarkets. The twelve original teams of the WHAhelped to bring the sport of hockey to cities never con-sidered by the NHL, such as Phoenix, Houston,Denver, and Birmingham. After only six seasons andmore than twenty-five teams, the WHA folded underpressure from the NHL, but not without making apoint. The four most successful WHA franchises—Edmonton, Hartford, Quebec, and Winnipeg—wereallowed entrance to the NHL. With the start of the1979–1980 season, the NHL again became the onlypremier professional hockey league in North America.The 1980s saw relative calm in the top tier of pro-
fessional hockey, with no new NHL clubs formed,although NHL leaders expressed their desire to havetwenty-four teams by the end of the decade (Inglis1999). Although the league did not expand the numberof teams, the sport of hockey was given a boost in theUnited States in 1988 with the movement of WayneGretzky from the Edmonton Oilers to the LosAngeles Kings (Jackson and Ponic, 2001; Trumperand Wong 2011). Within five years, San Jose, Miami,Tampa, and Anaheim were added to the NHL and theMinnesota North Stars had relocated to Dallas. TheNHL’s push into the Sunbelt was in full force.The flurry of expansion and relocation continued forthe remainder of the 1990s. The former WHA citiesof Quebec, Winnipeg, and Hartford lost their clubs;Denver, Phoenix, and Raleigh acquired them. Expan-sion teams were granted to Nashville and Atlanta,which began play in 1998 and 1999, respectively. TheNHL began the twenty-first century with thirty teams,as hockey operations began in Columbus and Minne-apolis for the 2000–2001 season. The explosion ofhockey at the NHL level mirrored that of lower levels,where U.S. Sunbelt teams were also emerging. Severalminor league circuits that began in the late 1980s andearly 1990s were comprised exclusively of southernteams. The Western Professional Hockey League hadnineteen teams during the 1998–1999 season, seven-teen of which were in New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana,Mississippi, or Arkansas (Slate 2012).The expansion bonanza of the 1990s was exempli-
fied by the ECHL, a minor professional leaguefounded in the late 1980s. In 1989, the league fielded
seven teams from Erie, Pennsylvania, to Nashville,Tennessee, to Hampton Roads, Virginia. By 1999, theleague had twenty-eight teams spread from TidewaterVirginia to the central Gulf Coast, including six teamsbetween Lafayette, Louisiana, and Pensacola, Florida.Like the WHA in the 1970s, the list of teams in theECHL was fluid from season to season, as team own-ership fluctuated and organizations relocated or ceasedoperations. By 2009, the ECHL had dropped totwenty teams, with only four teams located in thesoutheast and eight located west of the Rocky Moun-tains. Other minor professional leagues, such as theAHL, CHL, and IHL, experienced similar patternsover the last few decades.Although the overall number of teams did not change
much between 2000 and 2010, with relocations and own-ership changes, the distribution of leagues was altered, insome ways dramatically. The rapid growth into theSoutheast has retracted somewhat, countered by increasesin Texas and across theWest. A number of minor leagueteams, often operating on narrow financial margins, havejumped from one league to another or from one city toanother in hopes of finding more stable footing. In thecase of the CHL, the dissolution of a series of individualteams resulted in the collapse of the entire league(Mooney 2014). The departure of the NHL’s AtlantaThrashers for Winnipeg, Manitoba, following the 2011season—a repeat of the similar move of the AtlantaFlames to Calgary in 1980—demonstrates a correspond-ing trend in the top tier of hockey.
Data Collection and Methods
The purpose of this study is to examine the quantifi-able impact of professional hockey expansion intonontraditional hockey regions of North America overthe past four decades. Following examples from previ-ous spatial examinations of player production, rostersfor teams from the top professional ice hockeyleague—the NHL—were analyzed for five seasonsover a forty-year period: 1969–1970, 1979–1980,1989–1990, 1999–2000, and 2009–2010. Player home-towns were identified from team yearbooks or digitaldirectories for those playing more than one game dur-ing any of the listed seasons. As with other studies thatuse hometown information, it must be noted thatsome discrepancies might exist. Methods for collectingroster information are not always consistent over timeor between different leagues. In some instances, play-ers were listed by birthplace as opposed to hometown,producing some irregularities. This includes the possi-bility of individuals being born in a nonhockey regionbut moving as a youth player to support the develop-ment of hockey talent. The number of players wasdetermined for each year at several levels of geogra-phy: by country and, in the United States and Canada,the first- and second-level administrative regions—states or provinces and counties or census divisions.Preliminary roster analysis included calculation of
roster distance for North American players, a measure
4 O’Connell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
of the total distance from all player origin counties to aspecific team. Actual roster distance was then com-pared to the average distance of each team to all pro-ducing counties for that year. The expectation was thatwith expanded production and a greater geographicalextent of NHL teams, both measures of roster distancewould increase over the study period.Total player production was then determined for
each level of geography in the study. For accuratecomparison, raw numbers of players producedrequired a process of normalization to account for dif-ferences in population. To accomplish this, a ratiocomparison method was employed. Referred to in eco-nomic studies as a location quotient (LQ), this methodfollows the following formula:
.Count of Players from Local Area=Population of
Local Area/=.Count of Players from Region=
Population of Region/
This formula creates a ratio of relative productivitywhere production of a local area is compared to overallproduction (Carroll, Reid, and Smith 2008; Kies,Mrosek, and Schulte 2009). If the resulting LQ valueis above one, that area produces at a level higher thanthe regional level, an overproduction based on relativepopulation levels; if the resulting value is lower thanone, that area is underproducing. Using this techniqueallows for comparison of production levels across timeand at varying geographic levels. For first-level andsecond-level administrative regions in the UnitedStates and Canada, LQs were created for each nationseparately as well as for North America as a whole.The North American LQ values allow U.S. states andCanadian provinces or counties and census divisionsto be compared on a uniform scale. Population datawere collected from the U.S. Census Bureau andStatistics Canada using decennial census reports whenappropriate and from official estimates in other cir-cumstances. Population data from outside NorthAmerica were collected from the Census Bureau’s
population estimates and the United Nations Popula-tion Division.To determine the significance of both total produc-
tion values and the calculated LQs for county-levelareas across North America, a local hot-spot analysisusing the Getis-Ord Gi* statistic was performed. Aspatially weighted matrix was developed in ArcGIS10.2 (2013, Esri, Redlands, CA) for all contiguouscounty-level areas in the United States and Canadawhere increased weight was given to neighboringcounties within a prescribed distance of 74.36 km.This threshold distance was determined by averagingthe yearly mean distances for producing counties ineach of the five study seasons. All counties wereguaranteed at least one neighbor, which requiredrelaxation of the threshold distance for remote loca-tions or large regions.
Results
Global Production
As most literature has shown, the share of Canadiansin professional hockey has dropped considerably overthe past few decades. The percentage of Canadian-born players during the 1969–1970 NHL season was95 percent; by the 2009–2010 season, that number hadfallen to 54.5 percent. Declining Canadian percen-tages do not always translate to a drop in Canadian-born players. In fact, between 2000 and 2010, theoverall number of Canadian players increased from348 to 402.The drop in the percentage of Canadian players in
the NHL has, by statistical necessity, been mirroredby increases in players from other nations. The topportion of Table 1 shows the top five producingnations in each study season, shown as a percentage oftotal production. U.S.-born players have had the mostsignificant increases, with the percentage of Americansin the NHL rising from 1.7 percent in 1970 to 19.9percent in 2010. The combination of U.S. andCanadian players dominated all seasons throughout
Table 1 Top player-producing countries
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Total producers: 8 Total producers: 10 Total producers: 15 Total producers: 17 Total producers: 24
Country % Country % Country % Country % Country %
Percent of total Canada 95.0 Canada 83.9 Canada 73.3 Canada 54.5 Canada 54.5United States 1.7 United States 9.1 United States 15.6 United States 16.9 United States 19.9Poland 0.8 Sweden 4.2 Sweden 3.3 Russia 7.4 Sweden 5.7United Kingdom 0.8 Finland 0.8 Finland 2.7 Czech Rep. 6.6 Czech Rep. 5.4Czech Rep. 0.4 Czech Rep. 0.6 Czech Rep. 1.9 Sweden 5.9 Finland 4.1
Location quotient Canada 159.9 Canada 150.5 Canada 138.7 Canada 107.5 Canada 112.2Finland 3.3 Sweden 22.7 Finland 28.7 Sweden 41.1 Finland 52.2Denmark 3.1 Finland 7.9 Sweden 20.3 Czech Rep. 39.3 Sweden 41.8Czech Rep. 1.6 Czech Rep. 2.8 Czech Rep. 9.9 Finland 37.0 Czech Rep. 35.6Poland 0.9 United States 1.8 Latvia 3.8 Slovakia 23.0 Slovakia 24.0
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
the study; of the five seasons included in the study,North American production never fell below 71.4 per-cent of total players. Regardless, global productionbeyond Canada and the United States did see substan-tial increases during the study period. In 1970, sixnon–North American nations produced players; by2010, the number had grown to twenty-two. Europe,particularly the nations of Eastern Europe and Scandi-navia, made up the bulk of the player expansion. Rus-sia, Sweden, and the Czech Republic all surpassed the5 percent threshold in the 2000 NHL season; Russia,however, dropped below that level in 2010. Some havenoted changing internal economics in Russia, the riseof the Russian-based Kontinental Hockey League dur-ing the first decade of the twenty-first century, andresidual impacts of the 2004–2005 NHL lockout aspossible explanations for that decline (Cook 2009).When production is measured relative to popula-
tion, Canada remains the global leader, although itsposition of dominance has decreased over the decades.The LQs for the top producing nations in each yearare shown in the bottom portion of Table 1. In 1970,Canada’s NHL LQ was 159.92, one of only fournations with a production LQ over 1.0 and the onlyone over 4.0. By 2010, Canada’s NHL LQ dropped to112.21. In that year, fifteen other nations had produc-tion values over 1.0; six produced with values over10.0, with Finland at 52.25. Changes in regional LQsillustrate the difference in the ice hockey player pro-duction landscape between 1970 and 2010. As statedearlier, production from North America dominates inevery season. The growth in NHL production fromScandinavian nations, particularly Sweden and Fin-land, however, has raised the profile of that sparselypopulated region to such a level that in both 2000 and2010 it topped North America in regional LQ, asTable 2 indicates.
North American Production
Roster Distances
Roster distances were calculated for all teams in everyseason. These values were compared with the averagedistance from every team to all producing counties ineach year. As was anticipated, both actual roster dis-tance and average distance measures increased bet-ween 1970 and 2010, although increases were not
consistent year over year and, in fact, values droppedbetween several years. The Toronto Maple Leafs andMontreal Canadiens had the shortest roster distancein two of five study seasons, and the Ottawa Senatorswere the shortest in one; the Los Angeles Kings hadthe highest roster distance in all years except 2010,when the San Jose Sharks (barely) claimed that honor.In 1970, the Maple Leafs had twenty-three NorthAmerican players from eighteen distinct counties, themajority of which were within 200 miles of Toronto,giving the team a roster distance of only 357 miles. Atthe opposite extreme were the Los Angeles Kings. Farremoved from the traditional player-producing regions, itis no surprise that the twenty North American playersfrom sixteen different counties in 1970 produced a rosterdistance of 1,948miles. By 2010, theOttawa Senators hada roster distance of 454 miles, the shortest in the league,and the San Jose Sharks edged out the Kings for the lon-gest roster distance by one mile, with 1,968 miles. Thehighest overall value for roster distance was 2,066 milesby the Kings in 2000. The changes in average distance toproducing counties displayed similar patterns, althoughthe range in values was considerably narrower.
State-Level Production
Canada and the United States produced well aboveother nations in every year and Canada remainedabove the United States in production of NHL play-ers. The difference between the two nations hasbecome less pronounced, however: In 1970, Canadawas 93.4 percentage points above the United States; in2010, the difference had fallen to 34.6 percentage points.In raw numbers, Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta are theleaders in Canada, whereas Michigan, Minnesota, andNew York lead the United States. These six locationsaccounted for nearly two thirds of North AmericanNHLplayers in 2010, with over half from the three Canadianprovinces alone. County-level production aroundEdmonton, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Minne-apolis accounted for just over 20 percent ofNorth Ameri-canNHLproduction in 2010.The dominant trends across the study were the
growing representation from United States locationsand the consistency of production in Canada. In 1970,three states—Michigan, Minnesota, and New York—produced NHL players; by 2010, that number hadgrown to twenty-five, with states such as California,
Table 2 Global region production, location quotients (LQ)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Region LQ Region LQ Region LQ Region LQ Region LQ
North America 15.9 North America 16.5 North America 17.0 Scandinavia 23.3 Scandinavia 28.2Scandinavia 1.4 Scandinavia 10.2 Scandinavia 13.8 North America 14.0 North America 15.0Western Europe 0.2 Soviet Europe 0.1 Soviet Europe 0.6 Soviet Europe 3.8 Soviet Europe 3.0Soviet Europe 0.2 Western Europe 0.1 Western Europe 0.2 Western Europe 0.2 Western Europe 0.5
Note: Only regions with at least one player in all years listed.
6 O’Connell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
North Carolina, and Texas contributing to the total.Moreover, the amount of production has increased inU.S. locations. In 1970, Michigan was the top U.S.state, producing just 0.86 percent of NHL players.Minnesota was the top U.S. producer in 2010, contrib-uting 5.3 percent of players. In Canada, only YukonTerritory failed to produce a player at any point dur-ing the study. Although it is well documented thatCanadian production relative to the total has declined,as the preceding numbers indicate, the widespreadpopularity of hockey within Canada has ensured thatat the province level, production remains well abovethe level of its U.S. counterparts. As Table 3 makesclear, in every study year, Canadian provinces held atleast the top five spots in state- and province-levelproduction.Population-adjusted production using LQs puts a
greater emphasis on production relative to populationand against other places. Comparison of NorthAmerican LQs, where Canadian and U.S. productionare measured as if they are from a uniform region,reveals the continued dominance of Canada in icehockey player production. This is clear from the toplocations seen in Table 4. In every year, Canadianprovinces held at least the top seven positions; in1970 every Canadian province with production hadan LQ higher than the top U.S. state. Of all produc-ing Canadian provinces, only Newfoundland in 1980and New Brunswick in 2010 had North AmericanLQs lower than 1, indicating lower production thanpopulation would suggest.
Although Ontario and Quebec regularly contrib-uted the highest total number of players, LQ-basedproduction was topped in every year by Saskatchewan.In several years, Saskatchewan’s LQ was nearly doublethat of the next highest province. A regional hot spoton the Canadian Prairies was apparent as Saskatche-wan’s neighbors, Alberta and Manitoba, routinelyalternated spots in the top three for North AmericanLQ. Such a clear dominance was not evident withinU.S. states, however Minnesota held the highest U.S.position in three of the five study years and was neverlower than second position; Massachusetts and Alaskaeach held the top U.S. position once. Yet only ninestates—Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota, Massachu-setts, Rhode Island, Michigan, Connecticut, Washing-ton, DC, and Vermont—posted North American LQsover 1.0 at any point during the study period.
County-Level Production
County- and census division-level production revealedsimilar patterns. Regional changes in production areclear across Canada, as relative production in Ontarioand Quebec remained stable and production in thePrairie Provinces increased. Table 5 shows the topproducing counties in each year. In 1970, seven of thetop ten counties—representing a total of 34 percent oftotal players—were in Ontario or Quebec. By 2010,three of the top ten counties—now representing only11 percent of players—were from those two provinces.Edmonton, Alberta, exemplifies the changes in
Table 3 Top state and province raw production
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
State/province n State/province n State/province n State/province n State/province n
Ontario 114 Ontario 178 Ontario 179 Ontario 146 Ontario 165Quebec 44 Quebec 73 Quebec 60 Quebec 69 Alberta 69Saskatchewan 26 Saskatchewan 44 Alberta 49 Alberta 54 Quebec 51Manitoba 20 Alberta 38 Saskatchewan 34 Saskatchewan 31 Saskatchewan 39Alberta 16 Manitoba 31 British Columbia 32 British Columbia 27 British Columbia 37British Columbia 7 British Columbia 20 Massachusetts 21 Massachusetts 25 Minnesota 29Michigan 2 Minnesota 20 Minnesota 18 Minnesota 18 Manitoba 25Minnesota 1 Massachusetts 8 Manitoba 17 Michigan 16 Michigan 25New Brunswick 1 Prince Edward Is. 5 Michigan 16 Manitoba 14 New York 25New York 1 Nova Scotia 4 Illinois 6 New York 14 Massachusetts 11
Table 4 Top state and province location quotient (LQ)
Saskatchewan 27.0 Saskatchewan 25.8 Saskatchewan 20.3 Saskatchewan 21.2 Saskatchewan 23.5Manitoba 19.3 Prince Edward Is. 23.2 Alberta 11.3 Alberta 12.1 Prince Edward Is. 13.3Ontario 14.0 Manitoba 17.1 Ontario 10.3 Northwest Territories 9.9 Manitoba 12.9Alberta 9.3 Ontario 11.6 Prince Edward Is. 9.2 Ontario 8.4 Alberta 11.8Quebec 6.9 Alberta 9.5 Manitoba 9.2 Manitoba 8.3 Ontario 8.0British Columbia 3.0 Quebec 6.4 British Columbia 5.7 Quebec 6.4 Newfoundland 6.1New Brunswick 1.5 British Columbia 4.1 Quebec 5.1 British Columbia 4.5 British Columbia 5.2Nova Scotia 1.2 Minnesota 2.8 Nova Scotia 3.3 New Brunswick 2.7 Nova Scotia 4.7Minnesota 0.3 Nova Scotia 2.7 Minnesota 2.5 Massachusetts 2.7 Alaska 4.4Michigan 0.2 New Brunswick 1.6 Massachusetts 2.1 Rhode Island 2.6 Quebec 4.0
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
western Canada. In 1970, its six players representedonly 2.6 percent of NHL players; by 2010, the thirty-two players from Edmonton accounted for 5.8 percentof players. Although U.S. production was not on parwith that in Canada, increases were obvious in thetop-tier counties. In 1970, 1990, and 2000, WayneCounty, Michigan, led U.S. production; HennepinCounty, Minnesota, took the top spot in 1980 and2010. In 1970, Wayne County sat at twenty-seventhposition, with 0.86 percent of the total North Americanplayer production; by 2010, Hennepin County was infifth position with 2.7 percent of the total.Individual U.S. counties fared better against their
Canadian counterparts than U.S. states when examin-ing LQs. Whereas in 1970 the top U.S. county, St.Louis, Minnesota, was in seventy-fourth position witha North American LQ of 4.4, in all other study yearsat least one U.S. county placed in the top ten, as seenin Table 6. In 1990, two Minnesota counties placed inthe top seven, with Roseau in the top position with anLQ of 159.5. Although year-over-year values fluctu-ated slightly, the general pattern across all countiesand census divisions was a reduction in the top overallvalue with an expanded list of locations with NorthAmerican with LQs above 1. In 1970, with an LQ of187.1, Timiskaming, Ontario, led seventy-eight coun-ties or census divisions, seventy-five of which had anLQ over 1. By 2010, the top value dropped to 154.1;Lake of the Woods, Minnesota, led 189 counties or
census divisions, 172 with an LQ above 1. Again, theCanadian Prairies dominated top positions; every yearsaw at least two of the top five positions held by censusdivisions in either Saskatchewan or Manitoba.The trend in production is made most clear in a
visual examination of the changes in LQ distributionfrom 1970 to 2010 (Figure 2). Canadian production isclearly dominant in 1970; only Vancouver, BritishColumbia, had an LQ below 1 and several divisionsfrom Ontario into Saskatchewan had LQs over 100.By 2010, production was evident in a large swath ofU.S. counties from southern New England, throughthe Great Lakes, and into the northern Plains.Although Canadian production was still more wide-spread, production in this arc and a reduction in LQvalues across much of Canada suggest a shift to abroader, slightly more even player production acrosshockey regions of North America.
Hot-Spot Analysis
A Getis-Ord Gi* local hot-spot analysis was per-formed on both the distribution of raw player pro-duction (Figure 3) and North American LQs(Figure 4) for county-level production. This revealedpatterns in the statistical significance of productionacross the United States and Canada. In terms ofraw player production, 37 percent of producingcounties were reported as having significantly high
Table 5 Top county or census division raw production
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
County/censusdivision n
County/censusdivision n
County/censusdivision n
County/censusdivision n
County/censusdivision n
Montreal, PQ 21 Toronto, ON 45 Toronto, ON 44 Toronto, ON 31 Edmonton, AB 32Toronto, ON 13 Montreal, PQ 24 Edmonton, AB 26 Montreal, PQ 31 Toronto, ON 29Sudbury, ON 11 Winnipeg, MB 14 Montreal, PQ 23 Edmonton, AB 27 Vancouver, BC 16Cochrane, ON 10 Edmonton, AB 12 Ottawa-Carleton, ON 14 Ottawa-Carleton, ON 14 Montreal, PQ 16Abitibi, PQ 10 Sudbury, ON 12 Wayne, MI 13 Wayne, MI 11 Hennepin, MN 15Timiskaming, ON 9 Essex, ON 10 Vancouver, BC 11 Vancouver, BC 11 Calgary, AB 15Roblin, MB 8 Vancouver, BC 9 Middlesex, MA 10 Middlesex, MA 9 Ottawa-Carleton, ON 15Swan River, MB 8 Ottawa-Carleton, ON 9 Sudbury, ON 10 Essex, ON 8 Winnipeg, MB 12Edmonton, AB 6 Middlesex, ON 8 Essex, ON 9 Hennepin, MN 7 Wayne, MI 11Algoma, ON 6 Abitibi, PQ 8 Durham, ON 8 Calgary, AB 7 Saskatoon, SK 11
Table 6 Top county and census division location quotients (LQ)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
County/censusdivision LQ
County/censusdivision LQ
County/censusdivision LQ
County/censusdivision LQ
County/censusdivision LQ
Timiskaming, ON 187.1 Wynyard, SK 110.1 Roseau, MN 159.5 Maple Creek, SK 110.7 Lake of the Woods, MN 154.1Parry Sound, ON 127.8 Kindersley, SK 106.0 Wynyard, SK 102.5 Wynyard, SK 65.4 Mount Waddington, BC 108.4Roblin, MB 111.7 Roseau, MN 91.1 Maple Creek, SK 88.7 Kootenay B’dary, BC 60.8 Wynyard, SK 106.6Wynyard, SK 101.0 Brandon, MB 72.9 Kindersley, SK 88.0 East Kootenay, BC 57.2 Rocky Mtn. House, AB 87.8Cochrane, ON 100.8 Flin Flon, MB 71.6 Flin Flon, MB 75.8 Queens, NB 55.1 Kindersley, SK 81.0Abitibi, PQ 86.1 Battlefield, SK 68.7 Rouyn-Noranda, PQ 56.9 Sept-Rivieres, PQ 49.5 Churchill, MB 72.6Selkirk, MB 85.5 Weyburn, SK 63.6 Stearns, MN 56.3 Rouyn-Noranda, PQ 47.5 Western Manitoba, MB 57.7Battlefield, SK 76.3 Moose Jaw, SK 54.0 Rainy River, ON 50.7 Mt Waddington, BC 47.4 Maple Creek, SK 57.3North Interlake, MB 72.3 Haliburton, ON 52.1 Haliburton, ON 43.7 Carlton, MN 43.2 Lloydminster, SK 56.4Lloydminster, SK 66.7 Abitibi, PQ 50.9 Cowichan Val., BC 41.7 Grand Cache, AB 42.7 Portage la Prairie, MB 53.1
8 O’Connell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
levels of production—at the 90 percent confidencelevel or better—during the five study years. Thetrend across the study was for a lower percentageof counties to classify as significant, as this valuedropped from a high of 46.2 percent in 1970 to28.9 percent in 2010. When only counties at the99 percent confidence level are considered, 26.3percent report as significant. There were no signifi-cant cold spots detected in any of the five seasonsinvestigated.
Discussion and Conclusions
Because of increases in the overall number of play-ers in the NHL between 1970 and 2010—mostlydue to roster size increases and growth in the num-ber of teams—there was an expansion of playerproduction in both traditional and nontraditionalhockey regions. On the surface, this suggests a broad-ening level of support for hockey and a strengtheningof elite-level hockey talent production. When data
Figure 2 County/census division location quotients, 1970 and 2010. (Color figure available online.)
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
are examined using LQs, it is clear that productionfrom nontraditional areas has yet to achieve the levelsfound in regions with established production.Hot-spot analysis confirms this assessment. In terms
of player production values, statistically significant hotspots extend no farther south than a line from Bostonto New York to Pittsburgh to Minneapolis. Unlike inCanada, few U.S. counties were part of a cluster ofhigh production in any season. The only real excep-tion to this is a seven-county cluster around Boston in
2000. A handful of distinct hot spots occur when usingLQs, however these are largely the result of lone play-ers from small-population counties. Mike Christiefrom Howard County, Texas, in 1980, Brian Leetchfrom San Patrico, Texas, in 1990 and 2000, andDonald Brashear from Lawrence, Indiana, in 2000 allcontributed to single-county hot spots in those years.In many cases, these represent individuals who movedas young players to locations better suited to hockeydevelopment.
Figure 3 Significant hot spots, raw production, 1970 and 2010. (Color figure available online.)
10 O’Connell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
The fact that no significant cold spots weredetected in the data could suggest that the growthof hockey into nontraditional regions has done lit-tle to affect production in existing regions. Themajority of U.S. counties saw no player productionduring the study. Of those that did produce aplayer, 85.9 percent were contiguous with or withinthe defined neighborhood of another producingcounty. Because the vast majority had no produc-tion and LQ values of zero and among those few
were spatially isolated, significant areas of low pro-duction were absent.It is clear that hockey as a sport has seen clear gains
in popularity in the last few decades. Yet there is littleto suggest, from a hockey production perspective, thatnontraditional regions are substantially contributingto the ranks of NHL teams. Despite concerted effortsover the past fifty years, elite ice hockey remains aregionally defined profession in North America. Thehighest production of professional hockey players,
Figure 4 Significant hot spots, location quotients, 1970 and 2010. (Color figure available online.)
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
entr
al A
rkan
sas]
, [Pr
ofes
sor
Step
hen
O'C
onne
ll] a
t 06:
58 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2015
whether measured in raw numbers of players or nor-malized by population using LQs, continues to bedominated by regions of Canada and adjoining partsof the United States. Contributions from Scandinaviahave shown notable increases, and production fromsome countries—notably Russia and its Eastern Euro-pean neighbors—have been variable. A study of playermovements between the NHL and other global leagues,specifically Russia’s Kontinental Hockey League, mightprovide more insight into the trends of global migrationfor elite hockey talent.Additional investigation into these and similar data
might reveal some significant geographic changes inproduction within levels of hockey beneath theNHL. Preliminary analysis of player production datafrom the IHL shows that U.S.-born players nearlyequaled those from Canada in 2010. Data from youthdevelopment leagues or college teams were notincluded in this analysis, but they might provideinsights into the strength of local or regional playerproduction as well as trends in individual playermigration during development (Woolcock and Burke2013). Where opportunities for youth to engage withhockey are available, side by side with the infrastruc-ture and support needed to create a viable hockeycommunity—well-maintained ice rinks, skate andgear providers, competitive leagues—passion forthe sport might overcome financial and logistical bar-riers and help contribute elite players to the topleagues.
References
Alexander, R. 1999. Canada’s national game is headingsouth; Rising costs, stifling tax laws are forcingcountry’s NHL teams into decline. The Washington Post,January 2, 1999, p. D1.
Bale, J. 1982. Sport and place: A geography of sport in England,Scotland and Wales. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
———. 1988. The place of “place” in cultural studies ofsports. Progress in Human Geography, 12(4): 507–24.
———. 1992. Cartographic fetishism to geographicalhumanism: Some central features of a geography of sport.Innovation in Social Sciences Research, 5(2): 71–88.
———. 1996. Space, place and body culture: Yi-Fu Tuan anda geography of sport. Geogrofiska Annaler: Series B HumanGeography, 78(3): 163–71.
Bruner, M., J. Cote, D. Macdonald, and W. Pickett. 2011.Examination of birthplace and birthdate in world junior icehockey players. Journal of Sports Science, 29(12): 1337–44.
Carroll, M., N. Reid, and B. Smith. 2008. Location quotientsversus spatial autocorrelation in identifying potentialcluster regions. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(2): 449–63.
Carter, T. 2013. Re-placing sport migrants: Moving beyondthe institutional structures informing international sportmigration. International Review of the Sociology of Sport, 48(1): 66–82.
Cook, P. 2009. Return to the motherland: Russian migrantsin hockey’s changing world system. Master’s thesis,University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Cote, J., D. Macdonald, J. Baker, and B. Abernethy. 2006.When “where” is more important than “when”: Birthplaceand birthdate effects on the achievement of sportingexpertise. Journal of Sports Science 24(10): 1065–73.
Crossan, W. 2008. A preliminary categorization of sportingimmigrants. In Proceedings of the International StudentConference: Science in motion—Movement in science, ed. J.Smidova and L. Flemr, 14–19. Prague, Czech Republic:Charles University.
Danielson, M. 1997. Home team: Professional sports and theAmericanmetropolis. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Deaner, R., A. Lowen, and S. Cobley. 2013. Born at thewrong time: Selection bias in the NHL draft. PLoS ONE 8(2): e57753.
DeChano, L. 2000. The changing geography of NHL playerorigins. Sport Place 10(2): 21–34.
Donnelly, P. 1996. The local and the global: Globalization inthe sociology of sport. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 20(3): 239–57.
Elliott, R., and J. Maguire. 2008. Getting caught in the net:Examining the recruitment of Canadian players in Britishprofessional ice hockey. Journal of Sport & Social Issues 32(2): 158–76.
———. 2011. “Net-gains”: Informal recruiting, Canadianplayers and British professional ice hockey. In Sport andmigration: Borders, boundaries and crossings, ed. J. Maguireand M. Falcous, 102–11. New York: Routledge.
Henzel, J. 1990. Regional variation in the importance of icehockey in North America–1988. Master’s thesis,Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Inglis, G., ed. 1999. The National Hockey League official guide &record book 2000. Kingston, NY: Total Sports.
Jackson, S., and P. Ponic. 2001. Pride and prejudice:Reflecting on sports heroes, national identity, and crisis inCanada. In Culture, sport, and society, ed. S. Wieting, 43–62.London: Frank Cass.
Kies, U., T. Mrosek, and A. Schulte. 2009. Spatial analysis ofregional industrial clusters in the German forest sector.International Forestry Review, 11(1): 38–51.
Love, A., and S. Kim. 2011. Sport labor migration andcollegiate sport in the United States: A typology ofmigrant athletes. Journal of Issues in IntercollegiateAthletics, 4:90–104.
Maguire, J. 1996. Blade runners: Canadian migrants, icehockey, and the global sports process. Journal of Sport andSocial Issues, 20(3): 335–60.
McGovern, P. 2000. The Irish brawn drain: English Leagueclubs and Irish footballers, 1946–1995. British Journal ofSociology, 51(3): 401–18.
McKinley, M. 2009. Hockey: A people’s history. Toronto:McClelland & Stewart.
Mirtle, J. 2015. Tampa teachesNHLwhat a sunbelt success storylooks like.Toronto Globe andMail, June 3, 2015. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/mirtle-tampa-teaches-nhl-what-a-sunbelt-success-story-looks-like/article24834114/. Accessed June 12, 2015.
Mooney, H. 2014. Minor league hockey’s massive makeovercould cause NHL shockwaves. Yahoo! Sports, August 9, 2014.http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/western-expansion-driving-proposed-overhaul-to-ahl-echl-and-chl-in-2015-16-091626868.html. Accessed July 16, 2014.
O’Connell, S. 2000. Analysis of ice hockey player productionand team location. Master’s thesis, Oklahoma StateUniversity, Stillwater, OK.
Poli, R. 2010. Understanding globalization through football:The new international division of labour, migratory
channels and transnational trade circuits. InternationalReview for the Sociology of Sport, 45(4): 491–506.
Pollak, M. 1998. Sports leagues and teams: An encyclopedia, 1871through 1996. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Raitz, K. 1987. Place, space and environment in America’sleisure landscapes. Journal of Cultural Geography, 8(1): 49–62.
———, ed. 1995. The theater of sport. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.
Richardson, D., M. Littlewood, M. Nesti, and L. Benstead.2012. An examination of the migratory transition of eliteyoung European soccer players to the English PremierLeague. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(15): 1605–18.
Riess, S. 1998. Sports in North America: A documentary history.Volume 6: Sports in the progressive era, 1900–1920. GulfBreeze, FL: Academic International Press.
Rooney, J. 1974. A geography of American sport: From CabinCreek to Anaheim. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rooney, J., and R. Pillsbury. 1992. Atlas of American sport.New York: Macmillan.
Rooney, J., W. Zelinsky, and D. Louder, eds. 1982. Thisremarkable continent: An atlas of United States and Canadian societyand culture. College Station:Texas A&MUniversity Press.
Russell, M. 1974. Hockey and its regions: A spatial analysis.Master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.
Shropshire, K. 1995. The sports franchise game: Cities in pursuitof sports franchises, events, stadiums and arenas. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Slate, R. 2012. Search by league. Internet Hockey Database.http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues.html.Accessed June 12, 2015.
Storey, D. 2011. Football, place and migration: Foreignfootballers in the FA Premier League. Geography 96(2):86–94.
Trumper, R., and L. Wong. 2011. Transnational athletes:Celebrities and migrant players in futbal and hockey. InSport and migration: Borders, boundaries and crossings, ed. J.Maguire and M. Falcous, 230–44. New York: Routledge.
Wattie, N., J. Baker, S. Cobley, and W. Montelpare. 2007. Ahistorical examination of relative age effects in Canadianhockey players. International Journal of Sport Psychology 38(2): 178–86.
Woolcock, G., and M. Burke. 2013. Measuring spatialvariations in sports talent development: The approach,methods and measures of “Talent Tracker.” AustralianGeographer 44(1): 23–39.
STEPHEN O’CONNELL is an Assistant Professor in theDepartment of Geography at the University of CentralArkansas, 201 Donaghey Avenue, Conway, AR 72035.E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests includecultural landscapes, recreation and tourism, and historicalgeography.
Production and Migration Geographies of Professional Hockey 13
