Every time a sports media person insists that a team, a coach, or a player needs to be “accountable to the fans”, we cringe.
Here’s the funny part about the phrase “they owe it to the fans”: it’s almost never said by the fans.
That line usually comes from media types who’ve mistaken team access for some God-given right that all teams owe them. The media loves to portray itself as nothing more than a humble “conduit“ between the team and the public. Therefore, if a team or player snubs the media, or ignores their demands to publicly discuss a recent decision or poor performance, they’re also flashing a middle finger at the fans—the ones that “pay their salary.” This self-serving nonsense has been the media’s go-to payback-is-a-bitch routine for years.
The truth is much less heroic and far more human: they just hate being on the outside. And to be fair, nobody likes to be dismissed as irrelevant. But most people don’t write columns or spew anger-filled rants declaring it a moral failing when it happens. Their crocodile tears fool no one. Lack of access runs counter to their need for a new angle every day.
And here’s the part these media-whiners don’t want to say out loud: a hockey team is a business. Not a public utility. Not a government office. Not a courtroom. A business. One that is free to engage the public as often or as little as they see fit.
In this case, it’s a business that is offering the public a form of entertainment. Each game is a product of its own, just like a newly released movie is. Each season is a collection of performances, just like a long-run theatre production is. If you don’t enjoy the performances, you’re not obligated to engage with that business further.
Obviously, a good relationship with the media can boost awareness and help to sell more tickets. So yes—teams should care about fans. They should care because fan goodwill matters. But the media claiming it’s “for the fans” when it’s really all about their own selfish needs is laughable.
There’s a gross little tradition in sports media where performing poorly is treated like a crime that requires a confession. Lose a game—or botch an entire season—and suddenly it’s your duty to stand at the podium and be publicly processed, like you’ve been arrested for something hideous. The media calls it accountability. But what it often becomes is a ritual humiliation all in the name of increased ratings, improved circulation numbers, an uptick of online clicks, or a chance at some ego-driven self-promotion.
The bottom line is this: Management is paid to build a roster. Coaches are paid to instruct their players. Players are paid to play hockey. That’s where their responsibility ends.
But the idea that they must provide unlimited access because someone declared it an ethical obligation? That’s not accountability. That’s nothing more than media entitlement dressed up as virtue.
But don’t take our word on it: Los Angeles Times columnist Bill Plaschke flat-out said athletes don’t owe the media or even the fans interviews—only their best effort in competition as reciprocation for buying a ticket. You don’t have to agree with his every word to recognize the key point: the “owed” part is wildly overstated, and it’s overstated most loudly by the people collecting the debt.
If a team chooses to be more restrictive, that’s not automatically “anti-fan.” It can be pro-performance, pro-privacy, or simply pro-control of its own workplace. Because that’s what the locker room is: a workplace. Not your living room. Not the media’s clubhouse. A workplace.
So, let’s be honest about what “owe it to the fans” usually means in practice:
It means, “We want the locker room open.”
It means, “We want a player or coach raw after a loss and hope he stumbles.”
It means, “We want a quote that sounds angry enough to headline.”
It means, “We want to parse every single word said to find an angle for tomorrow’s story”
And nowhere do those cries grow louder than when a player or team is struggling and the media starts chanting that a player, coach or manager “must answer publicly.”
Must?
According to whom?
Surely not the media, wrapped in a cape, pretending to care about the fans?
