Why don't Canadian teams ever win the Stanley Cup? Exploring eight theories. (2024)

The Edmonton Oilers were eliminated from the NHL playoffs on Monday, ensuring that one of the strangest streaks in pro sports will continue for another year. No Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup since 1993. For almost three decades, the oldest trophy in North American professional sports, one that predates the NHL itself by a quarter-century, has resided in the United States. It’s all but the trophy’s permanent home these days.

Canadians are, to put it mildly, not thrilled about this.

Oh, many of them are fine with the Oilers losing, just like they’re fine with whichever rival has the longest run every year ultimately falling short. This isn’t about the whole “Canada’s Team” debate, which was conclusively settled here. Many Canadian fans would never sell out for the Oilers, Habs, Leafs or any other team other than their own.

But still … 28 seasons? Somebody can’t step up and win one championship in all that time, if only so we don’t have to hear about it anymore?

On the surface, the odds are hard to fathom. There are seven Canadian franchises, nearly a full quarter of the NHL’s 32 teams. Those numbers have changed over the years, but the ratio has been roughly consistent, meaning you’d expect a Canadian team to win a Cup every four or five years. Instead, nothing.

Various attempts have been made over the years to calculate just how unlikely all this would be. We asked our own Dom Luszczyszyn to crunch the numbers, factoring in the quality of each season’s Canadian entries. Here’s what he came up with, using odds data from SportsOddsHistory.com:

You’re reading that correctly. Since 1993, the numbers tell us that it would have been more likely for Canada to win 10 or more Stanley Cups than to win zero. And yet, here we are.

What’s going on?

That’s what we’re going to try to figure out today. I’ve put together a list of eight of the more common theories about what’s behind all of this. Some are more convincing than others, but we’ll give them each a chance to make their case. Let’s see if we can crack the code on Canada’s national Cup drought.

Theory 1: Canadian fans are not demanding enough

We’ll start here, because it might be the most common theory. And often, somewhat oddly, it comes from Canadian fans themselves.

It goes something like this: Canadian fans prefer to see their teams win, but they’ll support them even if they don’t. The sport is so ingrained in our national culture that the idea of tuning out a losing team is foreign to us. We’ll complain, we’ll boo, we’ll rant on Twitter or the local call-in show, but we won’t cancel our season tickets or make other plans for a Saturday night.

Meanwhile, the American teams are dealing with more fickle fan bases that have no problem looking elsewhere for their entertainment. Canadian teams want to win, but American teams need to. So they do.

Why it makes sense: As with a lot of these, we can point to the Maple Leafs as a prime example. The Leafs have a league-record Stanley Cup drought of 55 years and counting; they haven’t even been to a final in all those years and haven’t won a playoff round since 2004. But their building is full every night, even with some of the highest ticket prices in the league, and they consistently draw monster ratings on television. The franchise makes lots of money, even when they’re losing. So why invest in winning?

It makes a certain kind of intuitive sense in Toronto, as well as in other larger Canadian markets like Montreal and Vancouver.

Why it doesn’t: The theory kind of falls apart when you think about it.

For one, the Maple Leafs spend a ton of money – not just on players, where the team is always up against the salary cap, but on facilities, the front office, coaches (and ex-coaches), you name it. So do most other Canadian teams. If the idea is to rack up profit by being cheap, they’re doing it all wrong.

Beyond that, this theory seems to be stuck in the 1980s, when cartoonishly evil Toronto owner Harold Ballard could ice a legitimately awful team and still sell out Maple Leaf Gardens. Back then, gameday revenue made up almost all of the bottom line. Today, teams have more revenue streams than ever, and many of those have nothing to do with selling tickets. The Leafs make money even when they miss the playoffs, but they’d make so much more if they ever won a Stanley Cup. Think of the difference between the profitable Yankees of the ’80s and early ’90s, and the juggernaut they’ve been since the Jeter-era championships. The Leafs could be the NHL’s version of that, if they ever actually won anything.

There simply isn’t a viable business model that sees any Canadian team making more profit as losers than as champions. If it’s all about the bottom line and responding to financial incentives, the country’s teams should be winning all the time.

They’re not, meaning we need something else. So let’s flip our first theory around…

Theory 2: Canadian fans are too demanding

Does this theory directly contradict the first one? Yes. Do some fans and media use both interchangeably? Somehow, also yes.

The NHL is the top game in town in every Canadian market. Toronto has MLB and the NBA, and there’s also MLS, the CFL and women’s hockey around the country. But the NHL is front page news everywhere, in a way that just isn’t the case in any American market.

That attention, the theory goes, works against Canadian teams. Every decision is micro-analyzed, every player is nitpicked and criticized, and every loss is a catastrophe. If things are bad, local media will create a crisis. If things are good, well, we’ll get a crisis anyway, because somebody will have to play the contrarian and find the negative angle. Eventually, good players are driven away, management starts making short-sighted decisions, and nobody can stick to a plan because the fan base won’t let them.

Why it makes sense: I mean, if you’ve spent any time here, then a lot of this rings true.

It’s great to live in a market where hockey is a big deal, but sometimes the noise that comes with it is exhausting. The media in Montreal is infamous for its constant spotlight, and even smaller markets like Winnipeg and Ottawa will ramp up the drama whenever possible. Imagine trying to make the long-term decisions necessary to build a winner in that kind of environment. You couldn’t.

Why it doesn’t: First of all, this theory only works if you believe that Canada and/or hockey are somehow unique in pro sports. Canadian fans are demanding, sure, but so are Yankees fans, or Patriots fans, or Lakers fans, and they’ve all won plenty.

It also seems like we’re casting too wide a net here. A demanding fan base doesn’t suddenly make a goalie cough up a rebound, or a sniper go cold. They don’t make a key prospect stagnate, or a star player get hurt, or a referee miss an obvious call. Fans don’t have much influence over what happens on the ice, good or bad.

But I do think there’s some truth to this one, so let’s see if we can narrow it down into something a little more useful…

Theory 3: Canadian teams won’t (or can’t) bottom out

The modern NHL is a league where teams aim for the extremes. Ideally, you’re contending for a Stanley Cup. But if not, you want to be at the bottom, collecting high draft picks that turn into the elite prospects that become the star players on cheap entry-level deals and, eventually, the needle-moving superstars that lead a team to a championship.

But until recently, it was rare to see Canadian teams at the very bottom of the standings. Teams like Chicago or Pittsburgh or Tampa Bay could finish last or close to it for years at a time, drafting superstars with high picks. But Canadian teams rarely did that. The Calgary Flames have never picked higher than fourth in franchise history. The Vancouver Canucks have never had a first overall selection in 52 years of franchise history, and haven’t picked higher than fifth since 1999. The Jets have picked in the top five once since returning to Winnipeg in 2011. The Habs will pick in the top-two this year for the first time since 1980, and even the moribund Leafs somehow went 26 years without using a top-five pick.

The Senators picked high in their early expansion years and the Oilers had a memorable run of first overall picks that culminated in getting Connor McDavid, but they’ve been the exceptions. Maybe there’s something unique about Canada that pushes teams into the dreaded mushy middle.

Why it makes sense: This is where we actually could see some realistic fan influence. Drafting high in the NHL requires being bad and then having some lottery luck. Many teams pursue those lottery odds for years, in what some would call a strategic retreat from a short-term focus on winning. Others would call it tanking. Yeah, let’s go with tanking.

Maybe Canadian teams can’t tank, because it’s just too hard to do when every loss is given crisis-level attention. You have a plan, you think everyone is on board, and next thing you know you’re in last place in December and everyone wants the coach fired, the star player is getting ripped apart every night on two sports networks, and the owner is panicking. So you abandon the long-term plan and go back to trying to squeeze into the playoffs.

Meanwhile, teams in the States can finish last for years at a time, and their fans just shrug and watch the NBA until the hockey team is ready to win again.

Why it doesn’t: We could argue over whether teams like the mid-’90s Senators or 2010s Oilers were tanking or just incompetent. But more recently, there isn’t much debate. The Maple Leafs tanked for a few years, and it paid off with Auston Matthews in 2016. This year, the Habs finished dead last. The Senators have also just come out of a full-scale teardown. Maybe that proves our theory is wrong. Or maybe it just means that we’re on to something, Canadian teams have figured it out too, and they’re course-correcting.

But wait, didn’t we mention the draft lottery up above? If you need to win the lottery to get a star player, and Canadian teams haven’t had much luck with the lottery, then that must mean…

Theory 4: It’s all a conspiracy!

Canada hasn’t won a Stanley Cup since 1993. Do you know what else happened in 1993? Gary Bettman arrived as commissioner. He’s in his 28th full season on the job, and Canada is 0-for-28. Connect the dots, sheeple.

Why it makes sense: Bettman is an American executive who came over from the NBA. He clearly prioritized American markets, including non-traditional ones in the South, and allowed two Canadian teams to move to the U.S. within years of taking the job. He’s been chasing a big U.S. television contract for decades, and now that he’s finally back on ESPN, he needs big ratings. He and the NHL have all the incentive in the world to prioritize their American teams over Canada, where we already know the fans will tune in whether their teams win or not.

So what would you do if you were Bettman? I don’t know, maybe rig a few draft lotteries to make sure players like Sidney Crosby wound up in key American markets? Maybe let the referees know which way the wind was blowing, especially in the playoffs? Make sure that Canadian teams get hit with big suspensions in the Stanley Cup Final, or even have the video review guys “forget” to check on a few Cup-winning goals?

Why it doesn’t: Come on.

I don’t really have a rebuttal for all of this except that it’s dumb. If the NHL was going to rig draft lotteries, there’s zero chance they would have let Connor McDavid wind up in Edmonton, a result that probably cost the league tens of millions of dollars. More recently, Toronto and Montreal have won the lottery too. Every Canadian team can point to a blown call or officiating controversy, but so can every American team. And while U.S. TV ratings matter to the league, their current Canadian deal is for comparable money, and it’s the next one to expire. If anything, Bettman should be rigging things for Canada.

But he won’t, because he’s not rigging anything at all. Doing so would risk all of the league’s credibility, not to mention Bettman’s career, for questionable gains. It’s a dumb theory, and I’m only including it here so I can ask you to stop mentioning it.

On to something a little more reality-based…

Theory 5: It’s the economics

Before the cap, smaller Canadian teams were barely surviving, and were badly outspent by big American markets. The hard cap that was introduced in 2005 helps, but the playing field isn’t even, and outside of Montreal and Toronto, the Canadian teams are still at a disadvantage. Even now, Ottawa and Winnipeg can’t spend much, and the Flames have a nearly 40-year-old arena that they’re still trying to upgrade (which has even been floated as an excuse for this year’s playoff loss). The Canadian dollar usually lags well behind America’s. Maybe it’s just the economy, stupid.

Why it makes sense: The cap limits what teams can spend on their roster, but there are other ways to spend money on building a winner (and smart teams can find ways to outspend the cap if they want to). There isn’t a direct correlation between what a team spends and how much they win, and in the pre-cap days it wasn’t rare for big-spending teams like the Rangers to miss the playoffs. But having money sure doesn’t hurt, and some Canadian teams don’t have as much as their American counterparts.

Why it doesn’t: It’s not like the American teams that win Cups are always from the richest markets. Chicago and Detroit are big hockey towns, but Colorado was brand new when they won, Tampa and Los Angeles aren’t exactly traditional markets, and the Devils were on the verge of relocating when they won their first Cup. Meanwhile, the big-money Rangers have one title in 82 years.

More importantly, the economy theory ignores the long droughts in Montreal and (especially) Toronto, two markets that print money. Spending is a hurdle in Ottawa and Winnipeg, sure, and maybe occasionally in Edmonton or Calgary over the years. But it doesn’t seem like it could be the only factor in play, or even a major one.

Then again, you can’t spend big on the best players if they won’t take your calls…

Theory 6: The best players don’t want to play here

Whether due to media attention, higher taxes, cold weather or whatever else, many star players just prefer to play in the US.

Why it makes sense: Playing in Canada means constant attention, much of it negative, not to mention lousy weather during most of hockey season and higher taxes. While every player’s priorities are different, it’s not hard to see why someone might prefer to play down south, where they don’t have to constantly hear about every little mistake and nobody recognizes them out in public except for the attendant at the golf course.

Why it doesn’t: Is there really much evidence that this has been an issue? Fans can point to Canadian star Steven Stamkos taking less with Tampa than what Toronto or Montreal were offering in 2016, but he was choosing to stay with the contender that had drafted him, so it wasn’t all that surprising. We’ve heard about other players preferring America or having Canadian teams on their no-trade list, but we’ve also seen guys like John Tavares accept big money to move up north, and players like Connor McDavid and Carey Price didn’t hesitate to sign long-term extensions with Canadian teams. And while Canadian fans love to bring up tax rates as a significant disadvantage, an NHL agent has largely debunked that concern.

More importantly, NHL players just don’t have that much control over where they play. With few exceptions, they’re bound to the team that drafts them for years, with unrestricted free agency and no-trade protection only becoming available after they’re already past their prime. So even if there’s some occasional truth to this one with guys like Chris Pronger, the impact can’t be huge.

Theory 7: The Don Cherry factor

It’s our game, and we know best. Except, what if we don’t?

Hockey has changed over the decades, but Canadians are set in their ways about how they expect the game to be played, so our teams adapt more slowly. Whether it was welcoming Russian and European stars in the early ’90s or embracing skill over toughness today, Canada wants to watch good Canadian boys playing old-time hockey. Maybe that’s what’s holding our teams back.

Why it makes sense: I call this the Don Cherry Factor, based on the legendary and controversial broadcaster who ruled Hockey Night in Canada’s intermission show for decades. Love him or hate him or somewhere in between, Cherry was the most influential voice for a generation of Canadian fans.

The idea here isn’t to blame one broadcaster for a 28-season Cup drought. But I do think his influence is hard to understate, and his views really did shape how the game was perceived across an entire country. They also weren’t completely unique, so even without Cherry and his pulpit, there was just a certain style that Canadians are supposed to appreciate more than fans anywhere else in the world. Hard-hitting, nasty, tough, and played by Canadians.

So when the league opened up to Soviet stars for the first time in the early ’90s, it wasn’t the Leafs or the Habs that reaped the benefits. Instead, it was the Red Wings and Devils who welcomed the new players and strategies, and won Stanley Cups as a result. And when the game shifted away from “Slapshot”-style silliness toward more skill and speed, some of the Canadian teams were always a step behind. In a league with so much parity and such small margins, being even a little bit behind the times could be costly.

Why it doesn’t: This is my pet theory, but it’s not perfect, in part because it’s oversimplifying. There are millions of Canadian hockey fans, and we’re not some monolith that all want the same thing. Yes, we love Wendel Clark and Jarome Iginla and Ryan Smyth and Trevor Linden. We also love Mats Sundin and Teemu Selanne and Pavel Bure and Saku Koivu. We’re complicated like that.

But there’s a bigger issue here, and it’s the same one you may have spotted with a few of our other theories: Canada’s NHL teams haven’t actually been all that bad. They just don’t win Cups. Let’s look at Dom’s numbers again:

That chart is based on how good Canada’s teams were during the regular season. If this was all the fault of Don Cherry, or economics, or stars not wanting to play in Canada, or fans that are either too demanding or not demanding enough, shouldn’t that hurt teams during the season too? Shouldn’t every year look like 1998 or 2014? Why is it that so much of all this only seems to rear its head in the playoffs?

Maybe we’re back to conspiracy land, with Gary Bettman and his army of crooked referees waiting until the postseason starts to pull the rug out on those well-deserving Canadian teams. Or maybe it’s something even more scary and nefarious…

Theory 8: Maybe this is all just bad luck

“Luck” is the one four-letter word you’re not supposed to say near a hockey rink. But what if that’s it? What if this is just a long string of national bad luck, with lots of good and even a few great teams just continually having the fates plinko-chip them away from the big prize?

Why it makes sense: More than any other theory, this one squares with all of Canada’s near-misses. Six Canadian teams have gone to the final during the drought, and four of those went to a Game 7. In total, Canadian teams have played six games where a win would have meant a Cup, and they lost them all. Those losses include the Canucks hitting the crossbar in 1994, the Flames’ controversial no-goal in 2004, and the Oilers losing their goalie to injury in 2006.

Dom calculates the odds of this sort of drought happening just purely based on chance as roughly 1-in-142. That’s less than 1 percent. But it’s not zero percent, and again, Canada has come awfully close over the drought. If Martin Gelinas’ goal counts and Dwayne Roloson doesn’t get hurt, we’re talking about two Cups in 28 seasons, roughly a 10 percent chance, and nobody finds that especially unusual. The line between a national crisis and a shrug emoji is razor-thin. Maybe that’s all this is.

(We should also point out that all of this Canadian Cup drought talk always involves playing with arbitrary end points; before the drought started, Canada won eight of 10 Stanley Cups, meaning they’ll have won eight of the last 39 counting this year, almost exactly what you’d expect given the ratio of teams in the league.)

Why it doesn’t: For one, it’s super unsatisfying. All this hand-wringing over a fluke? There has to be something better than that to blame.

And then we go back to the numbers. One last Dom chart:

I’ll save you the math — that adds up to between four and five Cups that Canadian teams should have won, again based on their regular-season performance. It’s a big drop all the way to zero. Could luck explain all of that away? Yeah, actually, it could. But it’s certainly unlikely, and there’s no way to know for sure.

And the winner is…

… not Canada, for the 28th season in a row. But why?

As you’ve probably guessed, I don’t think we can settle on one answer. I’ve given you the eight best theories that are out there, and none of them stands out as being unassailable. But that doesn’t mean we’ve come up empty. Most complicated problems have more than one cause, so we can pick and choose from our options here.

Personally, put me down for a mix of theories 3 and 7, a little bit of theory 5, and a healthy dollop of theory 8. Your recipe might be different, and I’m open to hearing it, or any other theories you might want to share. Head down to the comments and let me know.

No rush, though. Us Canadians have got a year to think about it. And up here, we’re used to that.

(Illustration: John Bradford / The Athletic. Photos: Brian Babineau, Denis Brodeur / Getty Images)