The NHL Winter Classic isn’t just about cold weather and nostalgia. It’s a massive outdoor production that has to balance spectacle, logistics, and fan demand—all at the same time.
That shift was underscored this year when the Winter Classic was staged outdoors in Florida for the first time, signaling that infrastructure, travel access, and weather management now matter as much as traditional winter settings.
With the most recent Winter Classic now in the books and future editions already deep into planning cycles, the next truly open window for host selection lies further down the road. Rather than guessing dates, this analysis focuses on something more useful: which cities are best suited to host a Winter Classic whenever the next opportunity opens up.
To answer that, we built a Winter Classic Score that compares every realistic North American candidate using the inputs that actually matter for an outdoor showcase—travelaccess, stadiumcapacity, hotel availability, hockey fan demand, and January weather risk.
Below are the top 10 cities, along with the three biggest reasons each one stands out, using real numbers, not vibes.
1) Chicago — Winter Classic Score: 66.02
Chicago checks every major box. It’s one of the league’s strongest hockey markets, it’s easy to get to, and it has multiple stadium options capable of hosting a massive outdoor event.
- Airport & travel access: 26,113,502 passengers
- Hockey fan base: 2,500,000 fans
- Largest stadium capacity: 61,500 seats
2) Dallas — Winter Classic Score: 63.35
Dallas combines elite stadium scale with top-tier travel access and significantly warmer January weather than traditional outdoor markets.
- Airport & travel access: 30,694,774 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 92,100 seats
- Average January temperature: 47.2°F
3) Los Angeles — Winter Classic Score: 59.16
Los Angeles profiles as a “TV-first” Winter Classic host: massive reach, iconic venues, and the most weather-stable conditions among top contenders.
- Airport & travel access: 21,874,207 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 89,702 seats
- Average January temperature: 57.2°F
4) Denver — Winter Classic Score: 58.57
Denver offers a true winter backdrop without sacrificing logistics, pairing strong airport access with large-capacity stadium options.
- Airport & travel access: 29,529,451 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 76,125 seats
- Hockey fan base: 773,000 fans
5) Anaheim — Winter Classic Score: 55.28
Anaheim benefits from Southern California’s weather and infrastructure, sharing airport access and venue flexibility with the broader LA market.
- Airport & travel access: 21,874,207 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 89,702 seats
- Average January temperature: 57.0°F
6) Seattle — Winter Classic Score: 52.97
Seattle’s biggest advantage is infrastructure. Hotel density near potential venues gives it a major edge for a week-long marquee event.
- Hotel availability: 210 hotels within close range
- Airport & travel access: 17,997,233 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 68,740 seats
7) Detroit — Winter Classic Score: 52.94
Detroit is hockey heritage at scale. The fan base and stadium size do the heavy lifting, even with colder January conditions.
- Largest stadium capacity: 107,601 seats
- Hockey fan base: 1,800,000 fans
- Airport & travel access: 11,787,777 passengers
8) Las Vegas — Winter Classic Score: 50.26
Vegas is built for destination events. Hotel supply, airport traffic, and mild winter temperatures make it uniquely suited for a modern Winter Classic.
- Hotel availability: 121 hotels
- Airport & travel access: 19,600,869 passengers
- Average January temperature: 48.9°F
9) New York City — Winter Classic Score: 46.77
New York isn’t the easiest city to stage events in—but it’s the biggest stage. Fan demand and venue scale keep it firmly in the mix.
- Hockey fan base: 1,400,000 fans
- Largest stadium capacity: 82,500 seats
- Airport & travel access: 12,090,274 passengers
10) Boston — Winter Classic Score: 45.03
Boston brings Original Six energy and elite hockey passion. Limited hotel density near venues is the main constraint.
- Hockey fan base: 2,100,000 fans
- Airport & travel access: 13,559,018 passengers
- Largest stadium capacity: 65,000 seats
The table below breaks down the full rankings, showing each city’s Winter Classic Score alongside the metrics that drive it.
Whether you’re traveling to the game or watching on TV with your buddies, you can always place a bet while you’re at it. Our guide to the Best Betting Sites is a good place to start, with details on major sportsbooks and current offers—including the FanDuel Promo Code.
Full Methodology
1) Objective
The goal of this analysis is straightforward: identify which cities are best positioned to host a future NHL Winter Classic once the next realistic hosting window opens.
Rather than speculating on dates, the analysis focuses on the structural factors that matter most for staging a large-scale outdoor hockey event, including logistics, venue scale, fan demand, and weather risk.
2) What We Measured
For each city, we collected five inputs that directly impact Winter Classic viability:
- Airport & Travel Accessibility
Passenger volume at the primary commercial airport serving each city, used as a proxy for ease of national and international travel. In metro areas with multiple airports, the largest airport by passenger volume was used to ensure consistency across cities. - Average January Temperature
Typical January temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, used to estimate outdoor weather risk. - Stadium Capacity
The largest feasible outdoor stadium available in or immediately adjacent to the city, representing the maximum realistic attendance ceiling. - Hotel Availability
Number of hotels within approximately five miles of the primary venue or within a 15-minute drive, reflecting capacity to support teams, media, and traveling fans. - Hockey Fan Base
Estimated size of the local and regional hockey audience, capturing market demand and broadcast appeal.
The population was collected for context only and was not directly used in scoring.
3) How the Data Was Handled
To keep the rankings fair and comparable:
- All values were standardized into consistent numeric formats.
- When multiple stadiums were possible, the largest capacity option was used as the city’s hosting ceiling.
- Each city was evaluated as a standalone market, even when multiple candidates exist within the same broader region.
4) Regional Market Clarification (Los Angeles vs. Anaheim)
While Los Angeles and Anaheim share broader Southern California infrastructure, they were scored separately to reflect differences in standalone market scale, local fan demand, and branding reach.
Los Angeles benefits from a larger regional hockey audience and broader national visibility, while Anaheim’s score reflects a smaller primary fan base despite access to the same general airport network and venue ecosystem. This approach allows both cities to be evaluated on their own hosting profiles rather than as a single combined market.
5) Normalizing the Scores
Because each metric uses different units (passengers, degrees, seats, hotels, fans), every factor was scaled to a 0–1 range.
This ensures:
- No single category dominates because of raw size
- Each factor contributes proportionally to the final score
6) Weighted Scoring
The five factors were weighted based on how much they realistically matter when hosting a Winter Classic. A city’s Winter Classic Score is the combined total of those weighted factors.
7) Final Rankings
Cities are ranked from highest to lowest Winter Classic Score.
Higher scores reflect:
- Easier national travel
- More reliable January conditions
- Larger potential attendance
- Better event infrastructure
- Stronger hockey demand
All cities were included in the rankings, even if some had incomplete data.
