Date:
Author: Rss error reading .
Original article: https://theconversation.com/how-hockeys-politics-played-out-at-the-4-nations-face-off-tournament-250602
The National Hockey League’s 4 Nations Face-Off tournament captured attention across North America as hockey’s first best-on-best competition since the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.
The tournament, which featured competitive round-robin games between Canada, the United States, Finland and Sweden, was a massive success for the league. The final game between Canada and the U.S. averaged 9.25 million viewers with Canada defeating the United States 3-2 in overtime.
The recent rise in political tensions between Canada and the U.S., amid continued threats of a trade war, have made their way onto the ice. Canadian fans in Montréal loudly booed the Star-Spangled Banner before both of Team USA’s round robin games.
In response, Bill Guerin, Team USA’s general manager, encouraged U.S. President Donald Trump to attend the championship game in Boston. For his part, Trump used the tournament to reiterate his threat to annex Canada in a Truth Social post.
An apolitical image
Historically, hockey has been marketed as an apolitical space. The culture celebrates players that demonstrate a willingness to do their talking on the ice, praising their quiet reverence for the game’s traditions above all else.
Superstar players like Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky and Sidney Crosby have been admired for being modest, respectful and even bland in their conduct, approach to the game and leadership style.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when players and coaches for the American and Canadian teams were asked about the political context the tournament had been thrust into, most reiterated that hockey should not be political and instead should operate as a space for people to escape.
However, such notions belie a culture of masculinity that is decidedly white, and which ingrains expectations about tradition, professionalism and respect and works to uphold hockey’s political status quo.
Hockey’s preferred political acts
In reality, hockey has always been a political space. Acts like playing national anthems, saluting flags or honouring military service are all inherently political. So, too, are displays of gigantic national flags in stadiums or arenas, military jet flyovers and public subsidies for professional sports facilities.
It is noteworthy that those political acts are seen as acceptable in sports, while others — like booing or kneeling during an anthem — have faced widespread criticism from players, coaches and management.
Performances of nationalism and militarism are somehow seen as apolitical, while expressions of protest are unpatriotic and too political. Such distinctions are less about preserving hockey as an apolitical space and more about maintaining unity and consensus in support of the brand of politics that is celebrated throughout the culture.
Because the game’s history is largely based in white masculinities and traditions, political positions which reflect those ideologies (such as Don Cherry’s brand of nostalgic working-class populism and the MAGA movement’s views on nationalism, family structure or race) have been whole-heartedly accepted within hockey culture.
A false neutrality
(Kevin Lamarque/Pool Photo via AP)
Framing hockey as somehow neutral or apolitical simply reinforces the politics of the status quo, which benefits those in power and is, in itself, a clear expression of politics.
Wayne Gretzky, perhaps Canada’s best ever player, has become an example of this very political reality. Gretzky recently faced criticism for attending the U.S. election night celebrations at Mar-A-Lago and Trump’s inauguration. Trump himself has suggested that Gretzky could be Canada’s governor if it becomes the 51st state.
P.K. Subban, a gold medal-winning Canadian defenseman, was also criticized after he tweeted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post, suggesting Trump may make the difference in the final game’s result.
While many Canadians might disapprove of Gretzky attending the inauguration and Subban’s post, the acts are not likely to receive any major push-back within hockey itself (with the exception of former Canadian NHL player Akim Aliu calling out Subban).
Having historically developed as a symbol of white masculinity, hockey will continue to represent a haven for ideologies rooted in inequity, division and extreme nationalism. While silence from players and coaches throughout the tournament is not wholly ill-intentioned, it without question represents complicity in the face of growing hatred, extremism and political turmoil.
In contrast, acts of resistance or dissent are likely to continue to be cast off as too political by management, coaches and players. These individuals seem fine with politics in sport — just not politics that challenge their own.