Don’t Put Hockey in the Culture-War Penalty Box

R ecently, NBC News political reporter Allan Smith argued that conservatives were turning the National Hockey League into one of their newest battlefronts in the culture war. In reality, the conservative reaction to the NHL’s initiatives is a response to the Left’s culture-war aggression, which is what thrust the league into the spotlight in the first place.

Before the 2020 resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, the NHL and its teams were generally silent on social issues. However, since then, the league has been pressured into a more proactive approach to fixing cultural problems in the sport, such as its supposed past shortcomings concerning inclusivity.

While Smith is right that the NHL has lagged behind the NFL and NBA when it comes to social-justice initiatives, that doesn’t mean it ought to catch up with them. Instead, it should be wary of these grand displays, and encourage cultural change within the sport by other means.

Conservatives and players alike would be more than happy to let sports be sports without the social commentary altogether. Athletes already are (justifiably) frustrated by the media watching their every action. Introducing social-justice nonsense on top of that only raises tempers.

Just last month, the New York Rangers came under fire from LGBT activists for seemingly backing out of part of their scheduled “pride night” programming. The Rangers had advertised that players would sport rainbow uniforms for pre-game warmups, but none of the players taking the ice participated. Their sudden change came shortly after another controversial pride night, in which Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Provorov, citing his Russian-Orthodox faith, declined to wear a rainbow-themed jersey and sat out of warm-ups for his team’s “pride night” event. Earlier this month, the New York Islanders also declined to sport any pride-themed uniforms, citing an organizational policy against specialized warm-ups.

It’s understandable for the Rangers and Islanders to want to avoid the potential controversy of a player refusing to participate altogether. Whether these social-justice events were ever intended as a positive sign of genuine support, they are now merely a conformity-inducing opportunity for activists to attack any individual who dares to dissent. This unreasonable standard removes any authenticity behind events like pride night and is bound to breed resentment among the players subjected to it. By ceasing the use of players as pride-themed billboards, teams can choose other, safer ways to appease the social-justice neighborhood watch.

Hockey is a wonderful game, and hockey culture is so thoroughly ingrained in parts of the Midwest that it’s practically inseparable. I grew up in Detroit, Mich., otherwise known as Hockeytown, U.S.A. Nothing beats the atmosphere of a high-school game, the brotherly bond that teammates form, or the fact that nearly everyone you meet is a hockey fan.

Yet the sport’s culture is not perfect. Elitism is common. Moreover, anti-gay slurs were probably the second-most-common type of insult in youth hockey (after insulting an opponent’s mother). I’ve played with gay teammates, and have great sympathy for the hurt they’ve experienced over the years. I understand the desire to make a concerted, even forceful effort of inclusion. But top-down, virtue-signaling, mandated events such as “pride nights” are the wrong approach.

Instead, the NHL could learn something from its recent controversies. If it is to have social-justice initiatives, they must be player-led and off the ice. If individual players want to put together a demonstration, they should have full freedom to do so. But imposing these demonstrations from the top demands that every single player be on board to avoid controversy. Giving players the freedom to organize their own demonstrations means real leaders will emerge on a wide array of social issues, rather than only whatever the league or a team deems the “current thing.” Players should not be coerced into participating in any demonstrations they would not organically lead themselves. Rather than running these broad initiatives, the NHL should showcase players who already take meaningful actions to help make hockey more inclusive.

A better approach is for hockey players to become involved in the hockey community. When I was eleven, I was invited to attend a Willie O’Ree Skills weekend with the NHL as a part of its “hockey is for everyone” initiative. The league brought out many current and former players for a days-long skills session to spread the message that hockey could be a more inclusive sport. Such community-focused initiatives powerfully affect youth players, inspiring them toward greater acceptance of other players throughout their careers (as has been the case for me).

Such events do far more for hockey culture than rainbow jerseys will. Getting players involved in genuine social change off the ice, rather than wearing a specially themed jersey during warm-ups, is more important anyway. Kids need specific role models to latch on to, not just blanket catchphrases and movements. Education and inspiration, not virtue-signaling and indoctrination, is the right way to change the culture of the sport for the better.

The other meaningful opportunity for culture change comes from good coaches at the youth level. The main role model youth players have is their coach. One of my own hockey coaches had a zero-tolerance policy for any hateful rhetoric, especially of an anti-gay nature. No player on that team uttered anything like that after that point, no matter how heated things got. Funding programs to help train good coaches would also go much further than any warm-up demonstration.

Top-down celebrations involving players are ineffective and invite more opportunities for controversy. Instead, the league should focus on investing directly in the greater hockey community, particularly youth hockey, to make anyone who can play feel welcome on the ice.