#2) sid and ovi both visited trump in the white house. there was discourse then too

[capsfriendly]

with the caps at home vs the panthers tonight, i wanted to come on here and say a couple things about the panthers’ visit to the white house.

i’ve seen some people on here and on twitter pointing out the hypocrisy of certain players who have vocally supported diversity initiatives in hockey turning around and doing a photo op with a man who is nakedly trying to strip marginalized people of their rights. the sense of betrayal those fans are feeling is completely justified. despite appearances, conservative politics are incredibly popular among nhl players. i’m not writing to defend any of these men (my views lean pretty far left), but to share my understanding of the ways north american hockey as an institution perpetuates conservatism.

1) barrier of entry

ice hockey requires a lot of equipment to play. to be able to put a child through the decade or more of club dues and equipment fees required to begin seeing returns on investment—in men’s hockey, this begins with stipend pay at the major junior level in north america—requires an amount of money that many families simply cannot pay (though there are a bevy of charities trying to combat this). sports like soccer and basketball, which require comparably little equipment, are far more popular among both players of color and players from low-income families, especially in countries where hockey isn’t a national pastime.

because of this economic disparity between those who can play hockey and those who can’t, locker rooms can turn into eco chambers of privilege.

2) lack of higher education

i’m not sure of the data for other countries, but in the united states, there is a high positive correlation between holding a college degree and voting for democratic candidates. north american players are drafted to the nhl from major junior and collegiate teams, and entrance to professional leagues cuts their education short.

nhl players drafted from collegiate teams often enter the league without completing a bachelor’s degree, getting a year or two of higher education. during those years, many pick classes that they already have a strong knowledge base in, aware they’ll need to keep their grades up to maintain their university’s gpa requirement for athletes. because of this, many miss out on subjects that would teach them about systems of inequality like statistics, sociology, and studies of groups of historically marginalized people.

major juniors players, who move away from home in their mid teens, are even worse off. they leave school, usually completing the bare minimum requirements of a high school diploma to focus on their development as players and travel for games. and up until a recent vote, athletes from the canadian major junior hockey leagues were ineligible from playing ncaa hockey.

3) body economics

like all athletes, hockey players’ bodies are their jobs. the natural decline of their bodies over time limits their playing careers to the years of their lives when they can physically compete with both opposing players (to win games) and their own teammates (for roster spots).

the mean nhl career is 7 years. many hockey players don’t learn another trade and have no guarantee of making a successful career transition after retirement from playing (though some go on to coaching and media positions).

this creates a pressure to make as much money as possible while they still can, knowing that every time the take to the ice to do their jobs, they risk the very things they use to earn money: their bodies.

the physical nature of hockey means that a career-ending injury could come at any point. holding onto their earnings, knowing they’ll likely make up the bulk of income over their entire life, is essential to ensuring the comfort and health of themselves and their families.

earning high paychecks for an inherently limited number of years, it becomes attractive to these players to support candidates who promise to cut taxes for the rich, something popular among conservative politicians. while players may bear no ill will to members of historically marginalized groups and may even support their rights and freedoms, their personal economic situations lead them to vote for politicians who perpetuate that marginalization.

there are plenty of straight-up bigots playing major league sports. the panthers shouldn’t be singled out for visiting 1600 pennsylvania avenue. not because supporting the current administration isn’t reprehensible, but because it isn’t unique among hockey players—or even among athletes.