In one fundamental sense, "nothing has changed" from the '84 Canada Cup to this year's World Cup of Hockey: It is "still all about the money, another cash-grab," according to Stephen Harris of the BOSTON HERALD. For all the "breathless promotion the league has done for this event, fondness for the World Cup will decline sharply if one or more star players are lost for the season in an essentially meaningless summer tourney." The fallout also "might not be so great if U.S. television ratings on ESPN are weak, which seems mighty likely." The Olympic Games, for athletes and fans, will "always be of far greater interest and prestige" than the World Cup. That said, there will be "some fun hockey to watch over the next three weeks" (BOSTON HERALD, 9/11). In Boston, Fluto Shinzawa noted injuries "can strike the fittest players, especially those whose bodies are used to easing in to NHL seasons." It will be a "shock to the system for veterans to play in as many as 10 games before even reporting" to their club teams. Bruins Owner Jeremy Jacobs and his fellow owners "understood the tournament’s drawbacks before giving it the green light." Shinzawa: "You can’t blame them. It’s free revenue that didn’t exist before, via ticket sales, ESPN TV rights, corporate sponsorships, and merchandise hawking." No businessperson "would say no to such income." In turn, the players "are not treating the World Cup like charity." Every player is "receiving a stipend of an undisclosed sum." The stipend "increases for players on the four teams that advance to the semifinals." Regardless of the money involved, the World Cup is "risky business" (BOSTON GLOBE, 9/11). In Chicago, Chris Kuc noted a "worst-case scenario" for NHL teams is that players sustain injuries that will affect the '16-17 regular season. Blackhawks C Jonathan Toews said, "There always is an injury risk every time you step on the ice" (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 9/10).
