<img data-recalc-dims="1" loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="278" height="400" src="https://i0.wp.com/theleafsnation.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/416px-MLG_1931w.jpg?resize=278%2C400&#038;ssl=1" alt="" />
It is a story we have all heard before: the Toronto Maple Leafs have been a bad team for a long time because they know that no matter what they do, they&rsquo;ll sell out every game and make a ludicrous amount of money.
The enduring popularity of the story is easy to understand. As fun as it is to berate Leafs fans for the failures of their team, isn&rsquo;t it more fun to blame them? It&rsquo;s not just their problem, it&rsquo;s their fault that way.
There is a problem with the argument: it is largely without merit.

This particular article was inspired by Esquire writer Chris Jones, who <a href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7116518/what-do-mean-we">in a piece on fans using the word &lsquo;we&rsquo; to describe their team</a> included the following:
<blockquote>If you&#8217;re a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can probably say &quot;we,&quot; because your faithful devotion to that miserable team is the principal reason they will always be shit. You might as well accept your share of the blame.</blockquote>
Jones&rsquo; piece is on other matters, so he doesn&rsquo;t spend additional time explaining why he feels that way. Still, the argument itself is pretty self-explanatory. The only problem is that it doesn&rsquo;t make sense.
The economics are weak, for starters. Hockey humourist Down Goes Brown <a href="http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2008/10/economics-101-why-blame-fan-doesnt-make.html">wrote a great piece refuting the economic argument in late 2008</a>, and while I recommend the entire article, the basic argument is easily summarized: the Leafs make some of their money on tickets, which is guaranteed income in a city like Toronto, but they gather far more money from other avenues &ndash; avenues which would be more lucrative if they were a contending team every year.
So yes, the Leafs make money every year. Lots of money. That doesn&rsquo;t mean they couldn&rsquo;t make much, much more if they were successful &ndash; in other words, there is significant incentive to improve the club, even if they aren&rsquo;t worried about competing for attendance.
There&rsquo;s also the fact that poor attendance doesn&rsquo;t guarantee a team will adjust their approach. The New York Islanders have iced consistently poor teams for years; yet they&rsquo;ve also ranked <a href="http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2001">near the bottom of league attendance</a> going back over that entire span. The Florida Panthers haven&rsquo;t won a playoff game since 1997; their attendance has been in the same range. Fans of the Phoenix Coyotes haven&#8217;t shown up; instead of a better team they&#8217;ve faced repeated threats of no team at all.&nbsp; The fans in these places have withdrawn their support, and while the teams have undoubtedly felt the impact financially it hasn&rsquo;t magically made them competitive; instead, they&rsquo;ve been worse than Toronto.&nbsp; 
Another factor is that the Leafs&rsquo; monopoly on the Toronto hockey market doesn&rsquo;t offer their general manager a monopoly on his job. Nobody denies the Leafs&rsquo; willingness to spend money, and nobody denies their willingness to fire an incompetent general manager. In what way, then, could supposed financial complacency stretch into hockey operations &ndash; they&rsquo;re separate departments, and there&rsquo;s no reason anyone would feel safe in the role of general manager, head coach, or anywhere else if their performance is poor.
To recap:
<ul>
<li>A significant portion of the Maple Leafs&rsquo; revenue is impacted by team performance, giving them financial incentive to improve the on-ice product. </li>
<li>There are teams that have struggled for years despite significant financial incentive to improve. </li>
<li>The Leafs continue to spend on their hockey team despite their monopoly on the Toronto hockey market. </li>
<li>The men making hockey decisions face the same incentives as employees of other teams, as their jobs are as at-risk as those working for other clubs.</li>
</ul>
In other words, when looking for an explanation of the team&rsquo;s post-lockout playoff-less run, it would be a mistake to blame the fans.

<img width="278" height="400" src="https://theleafsnation.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/416px-MLG_1931w.jpg" alt="" />
It is a story we have all heard before: the Toronto Maple Leafs have been a bad team for a long time because they know that no matter what they do, they&rsquo;ll sell out every game and make a ludicrous amount of money.
The enduring popularity of the story is easy to understand. As fun as it is to berate Leafs fans for the failures of their team, isn&rsquo;t it more fun to blame them? It&rsquo;s not just their problem, it&rsquo;s their fault that way.
There is a problem with the argument: it is largely without merit.

This particular article was inspired by Esquire writer Chris Jones, who <a href="http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7116518/what-do-mean-we">in a piece on fans using the word &lsquo;we&rsquo; to describe their team</a> included the following:
<blockquote>If you're a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs, you can probably say &quot;we,&quot; because your faithful devotion to that miserable team is the principal reason they will always be shit. You might as well accept your share of the blame.</blockquote>
Jones&rsquo; piece is on other matters, so he doesn&rsquo;t spend additional time explaining why he feels that way. Still, the argument itself is pretty self-explanatory. The only problem is that it doesn&rsquo;t make sense.
The economics are weak, for starters. Hockey humourist Down Goes Brown <a href="http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2008/10/economics-101-why-blame-fan-doesnt-make.html">wrote a great piece refuting the economic argument in late 2008</a>, and while I recommend the entire article, the basic argument is easily summarized: the Leafs make some of their money on tickets, which is guaranteed income in a city like Toronto, but they gather far more money from other avenues &ndash; avenues which would be more lucrative if they were a contending team every year.
So yes, the Leafs make money every year. Lots of money. That doesn&rsquo;t mean they couldn&rsquo;t make much, much more if they were successful &ndash; in other words, there is significant incentive to improve the club, even if they aren&rsquo;t worried about competing for attendance.
There&rsquo;s also the fact that poor attendance doesn&rsquo;t guarantee a team will adjust their approach. The New York Islanders have iced consistently poor teams for years; yet they&rsquo;ve also ranked <a href="http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2001">near the bottom of league attendance</a> going back over that entire span. The Florida Panthers haven&rsquo;t won a playoff game since 1997; their attendance has been in the same range. Fans of the Phoenix Coyotes haven't shown up; instead of a better team they've faced repeated threats of no team at all.&nbsp; The fans in these places have withdrawn their support, and while the teams have undoubtedly felt the impact financially it hasn&rsquo;t magically made them competitive; instead, they&rsquo;ve been worse than Toronto.&nbsp; 
Another factor is that the Leafs&rsquo; monopoly on the Toronto hockey market doesn&rsquo;t offer their general manager a monopoly on his job. Nobody denies the Leafs&rsquo; willingness to spend money, and nobody denies their willingness to fire an incompetent general manager. In what way, then, could supposed financial complacency stretch into hockey operations &ndash; they&rsquo;re separate departments, and there&rsquo;s no reason anyone would feel safe in the role of general manager, head coach, or anywhere else if their performance is poor.
To recap:
<ul>
 <li>A significant portion of the Maple Leafs&rsquo; revenue is impacted by team performance, giving them financial incentive to improve the on-ice product. </li>
 <li>There are teams that have struggled for years despite significant financial incentive to improve. </li>
 <li>The Leafs continue to spend on their hockey team despite their monopoly on the Toronto hockey market. </li>
 <li>The men making hockey decisions face the same incentives as employees of other teams, as their jobs are as at-risk as those working for other clubs.</li>
</ul>
In other words, when looking for an explanation of the team&rsquo;s post-lockout playoff-less run, it would be a mistake to blame the fans.

Dear Leafs Fans: It Isn’t Your Fault

Recent articles from Jonathan Willis

Breaking News