Sjur Robert Nilsen

🏒 The decision by the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS) to allow Russia back to international hockey is an own goal by the International Ice Hockey Federation, IIHF. Instead of, from the very outset, clearly declaring the prime reason to ban Russia from IIHF events, the world governing body gave lame and shallow reasons like “safety and well-being of players, officials, fans, volunteers and all participants.” For reasons that are difficult to understand, the IIHF were hesitant to give the real motives to keep Russia out; the unprovoked aggression of a sovereign nation, daily murder of innocent civilians and the most horrific war crimes on European soil since WWII. And the IIHF could see it coming. In June this year, the IIHF’s own (!) disciplinary board informed the IIHF Council (Board) that the council’s reasons to ban Russia could not be maintained in its current form. To put it simply, safety and well-being of participants is not a good enough reason to ban a nation. It can be reason #5 but not the main reason. It is important to understand how CAS works. The court’s job is to determine whether a federation’s own regulations are reasonable and if the federation follows its own rules. The IIHF has had five years following the Russian aggression to adjust their statutes to reflect the current situation in Ukraine, to be something like this: “The IIHF prohibits participation of nations that indulge in unprovoked wars of aggression, where innocent civilians and sports facilities are targeted and where civilians are murdered indiscriminately. A ban from participating is relevant particularly to nations where the political power and the country’s ice hockey authorities are intertwined and where the war enjoys full support from such authorities.” When reading CAS’ ruling from today, it is obvious that it is the IIHF that bears the responsibility. CAS states clearly that the reasons (safety, etc) as presented by the IIHF were not enough. What is even more embarrassing for the IIHF is that CAS, in the same press release, writes that it had dismissed similar Russian appeals - from the Russian Curling Federation - because of the World Curling Federation citing in their case that “the reintroduction of Russian athletes would present significant challenges to the integrity of the competitions.” So, in hockey, the Russian appeal was upheld. In curling it was dismissed. Difference? How you present your case. There is no question that it is the IIHF Council, with the former president Luc Tardif, that bears responsibility for the IIHF’s inability to properly present its case. And I personally pointed that out to Tardif some three years ago when we spoke at length about the Russian issue at the Champions Hockey League final in Luleå, Sweden. 🥅 The CAS decision does not automatically mean that Russia will take part. Countries like Sweden, Finland and Czechia should notify the IIHF that if Russia plays, we are out. The IIHF World Championship can do without Russia, sportively and commercially. But without the money from Swedish, Finnish and Czech television, there is no event.

Finska klubbars spelarbudgetar i den kommande, kritiska "supersäsongen" då 17 lag ska bli 14 till 27/28. Ettan IFK Helsingfors har en lägre budget än SHL:s lägsta (Malmö). Frölunda har c:a tre ggr så höga spelarlöner som KooKoo som man möter i CHL.

Intressant fenomen. Utsålt en tisdag i november mot Timrå men inte när det gäller. En seriematch är alltid en kamp om tre poäng. En vinst i en playoffmatch har enbart värde om den följs upp av tre vinster längre fram. – at Gothenburg, Sweden