In reaching out to various media members in Canada as well as the US we received the following press release from Stephen Heisler who is a hockey consultant and writer in the US and wanted to pass on one of his most recent articles.
Enjoy the read:
Brendan Shanahan’s review of Ontario’s junior hockey system is really about much more than junior hockey.
It is about what happens when the foundation underneath a sport changes.
For generations, hockey’s greatest strength was not the handful of elite players who eventually reached the NHL. It was the enormous middle of the game.
Thousands upon thousands of kids playing in neighborhood rinks, community associations and minor-hockey programs created an extraordinarily deep talent pool.
That system produced NHL players because hockey was everywhere.
It was also relatively accessible. That is becoming harder to say.
Toronto was once one of the world’s great hockey laboratories. Minneapolis and the surrounding Twin Cities occupied a similar position in the United States. Both markets produced generations of players because hockey existed as part of the fabric of everyday life.
The development model was not exclusively about elite academies and it was community hockey it was school hockey. It was local associations.
It was kids playing constantly, often with players from completely different economic backgrounds. The best players eventually separated themselves.
Today, the separation often happens much earlier.
Elite academies, private development programs, specialized training, expensive tournaments, travel hockey and year-round skills instruction have become increasingly important components of the pathway.
There is nothing inherently wrong with developing elite players. The problem is what happens when the elite pathway becomes the primary pathway.
The economics of hockey have changed dramatically. Canada’s own examination of sport participation has identified cost as a major barrier and specifically noted that hockey carries particularly high participation expenses.
The report also described concerns about increasing pay-to-play and privatization within Canadian sport.
That creates a fundamental question – what happens to the talent that never gets through the door but the answer may be hiding in plain sight.
Look at the 2026 Olympic men’s hockey rosters.
Team Canada still has an enormous Ontario presence. Eleven players on the 25-man roster were born in Ontario, including Connor McDavid, Mitch Marner, Drew Doughty, Nick Suzuki and Tom Wilson.
But the roster also contained something that would have been extraordinary in earlier generations: zero Quebec-born players.
That does not mean Quebec has stopped producing hockey players but does mean something about Canada’s traditional hockey geography has changed and the American roster provides another interesting comparison.
Minnesota and Michigan remain important hockey states. Brock Faber and Jake Guentzel were born in Minnesota. Kyle Connor, Connor Hellebuyck, Jack Hughes and Quinn Hughes were among the Michigan-born players on the U.S. Olympic roster.
So the argument is not that these markets stopped producing elite players. They haven’t.
The question is whether they are producing them from the same broad-based hockey culture that existed 30 or 40 years ago.
That distinction matters. Because the United States and Canada don’t need fewer elite programs.
They need a much bigger bottom of the pyramid.
A kid shouldn’t need to be identified as a future elite player at eight years old to have a legitimate opportunity to develop.
A family shouldn’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars before it knows whether its child even belongs in competitive hockey.
And the neighborhood rink should not become merely the place where children learn whether their parents can afford the next level and that is where Vancouver and British Columbia offer an interesting contrast.
British Columbia has undergone enormous demographic change as well, yet hockey has continued to find ways to attract players from increasingly diverse communities.
The province has produced players such as Macklin Celebrini, Devon Toews, Shea Theodore and Sam Reinhart, all members of Canada’s 2026 Olympic team. Celebrini was born in North Vancouver, Toews in Abbotsford, Theodore in Aldergrove and Reinhart in West Vancouver.
The lesson is not that one province has solved everything but is that hockey can remain culturally relevant while its surrounding population changes.
That may be the challenge facing Toronto, Quebec, Michigan and Minnesota.
The sport cannot simply assume that the next generation will automatically embrace it because previous generations did. Hockey has to earn that relationship.
And that means making the game accessible before asking families to make enormous investments in elite development.
Shanahan’s recommendations address governance, player pathways and the structure of junior hockey and those changes may be important.
But junior hockey is downstream from minor hockey and minor hockey is downstream from whether a child ever gets onto the ice.
That is the issue hockey’s leaders should be thinking about now – not simply how to identify the next Connor McDavid.
How do we make sure the next Connor McDavid has a thousand kids to play against?
Because Canada’s greatest hockey advantage was never its elite development system and was the sheer number of children who played the game.
Hockey doesn’t need to abandon elite development. It needs to rebuild the middle. That middle is where hockey culture lives.
And without it, even the world’s best development programs eventually run out of players.
Navigating junior hockey can be complicated. Victorious Hockey Company helps families make informed decisions about their player’s hockey future, from junior hockey through college and beyond.
To learn more or schedule a conversation with Stephen Heisler, book a call with us today
Here is one of the replies to the above:
“It was community hockey”
Then the problem is the community aspect. Access could be provided by cities and towns who own rinks and operate them as a SERVICE instead of the companies who bought the rinks from the local governments and run them for profit.
If you want a return to community hockey then the community has to fund the hockey. And I’m not talking about parents. I’m talking about cities, states, and a federal government that continue to lower taxes every chance they get.
When you do that, you reduce the exact funds that used to be used to help bolster the community.
It’s not just a hockey problem, it is an infrastructure problem created by policy. If you want to argue that access is important, then the only way to have that access is to remove the profit motive from the ice time.
A kid can learn with used or donated gear, can source cheap equipment online. But when you show up and ice access costs hundreds of dollars, that’s where you lose the folks who can’t afford it
