Recently, the University of Toronto’s Mowat Centre published an article that argued that Canada could support six more teams, increasing the total to 12. The paper, written by Tony Keller and Neville McGuire, is an extremely interesting read that makes a compelling argument that Canada has only six teams because of politics, not feasibility, and certainly not demand.

The paper suggests that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver can all support another NHL franchise, provided that the new teams share the existing NHL arenas in each city. In addition to another franchise in Toronto, Southern Ontario can support another team in Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo, or London. Finally, both Quebec and Winnipeg can support a team – a notion being discussed endlessly with the precarious settlement of both the Phoenix Coyotes and Atlanta Thrashers.

The paper argues that because the NHL largely derives their profits from ticket sales and concessions (in contrast to a league like the NFL which has a lucrative television contract), having a small market that generates big interest in hockey is much more valuable than a large market with less interest. Winnipeg > Phoenix.

The paper uses Edmonton as a benchmark because it is one of the smallest markets in the NHL and houses the smallest arena in the NHL. However, because of the fanatical nature of Edmonton fans, the Oilers are not only able to survive, but strive. According to Keller and McGuire, ticket and in-arena concession revenue makes up approximately 50-75% of a team’s total revenue; in 2007-2008, the Oilers generated approximately $1.2 million per home game from tickets alone.

I highly recommend reading the entire article. Based on the variables examined in the paper, it is clear that Canada can support an additional six teams. The demand is evidently there. And, for the most part, so is the infrastructure. However, the authors do not look at other important variables when examining each city's viability. When they do mention certain drawbacks they do not expand on them and leave them largely ignored. The authors freely admit this stating that their objective was to discover the cities that the free market would support, not what the NHL would allow.

I believe the amount of Canadian teams in the NHL needs to increase, but there could be major repercussions to expanding the NHL’s presence in Canada.

Stop me if you've heard this before: the Phoenix Coyotes are having trouble drawing fans. This isn't news considering the team has incurred losses totalling several hundred million dollars since their move from Winnipeg, causing the team to file for bankruptcy in 2009. Currently, the league owns to the Coyotes, which is unlikely to change anytime soon. Every time a potential new owner is seemingly set to give the franchise a sense of stability there's a snag that keeps the Coyotes' status in the desert in jeopardy. Currently, it's a battle between the city of Glendale and the Goldwater Institute that leaves Matthew Hulsizer's bid as owner tenuous.

There's also trouble in Atlanta with dwindling attendance, which has led some in the Canadian media to descend on the situation as they usually do when a Southern market struggles to support a team. The Thrashers are certainly in less immediate danger of relocation than the Coyotes, but if the team continues to draw attendance numbers that hover around 10,000 the same question will be asked: is it time to bring a team back to Canada?

The upcoming NHL board of governors meetings, taking place in sunny Pebble Beach on Tuesday and Wednesday, will give the NHL owners a break from their teams to discuss a litany of issues concerning the league. ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun reports that the main discussion will revolve around the potential sale of the NHL-funded Phoenix Coyotes to the Ice Edge investment group. Interestingly, LeBrun also speculates that discussion surrounding the Coyotes sale will inevitably lead to discussion on the viability of other markets, particularly Quebec City, Winnipeg, and Toronto.