It seems that the government’s decision to finance the Los Angeles Kings’ preparatory games in Quebec is raising concerns and criticism, mainly due to the difficult economic context and the social priorities at stake.
• Read also: Subsidy for the Kings: Girard takes note of criticism, but refuses to back down
The investment of $5 million to $7 million to host these matches is seen as being disconnected from the financial realities faced by many families.
- Listen to the political meeting with Yasmine Abdelfadel and Marc-André Leclerc via QUB radio :
Emotional
From an emotional point of view, it is understandable that people would react negatively to this decision, especially considering the economic and social challenges the population faces. However, it would be important to objectively analyze the situation, putting aside popular indignation.
It must be said, on the scale of the government budget, the sum allocated for these preparatory matches is relatively modest, even marginal, although the amount can be impressive on the individual scale. Especially since it is a one-off expense, we cannot therefore equate it with the current negotiations with the unions, because it has neither the same scale, nor the same recurrence, nor the same nature.
Besides, how come we are offended that we can spend $5 million to $7 million to attract hockey teams here when we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars for tramway studies and third link which never saw the light of day contrary to what had been promised.
Photo Stevens LeBlanc
Back to hockey
One argument put forward by the government is the desire to demonstrate to the NHL that Quebec not only has the necessary infrastructure, but also a solid fan base, with a view to possible negotiations to bring a hockey team to Quebec. It must be recognized that this argument may seem debatable, even doubtful, especially when this expense is not part of a more global strategy to find the Nordics. Quebecers would probably have understood better that the government could provide an envelope of 8 to 10 million dollars over two years to convince the NHL than spending 5 to 7 million to hold marginal sporting events.
We must admit that the government chose the wrong time, manner and arguments to present and defend this expenditure. In the current context, marked by significant social and economic challenges, the perception of public opinion is crucial. Ignoring it is a symptom of something bigger.
