By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The United States men’s hockey team’s Olympic gold medal victory was overshadowed by their behavior in leaked videos. In one, FBI Director Kash Patel joined the team in celebrating, including a phone call with President Trump. During this call, the team and President Trump seemingly shared a laugh about inviting the gold-medal-winning United States women’s hockey team to the White House, a moment that disappointed many given the significant success of women athletes during these Games. This incident also highlights a recurring pattern of problematic behavior within hockey culture, despite the sport’s recent surge in popularity and efforts to be more inclusive.
Read the original article here
The USA men’s hockey team’s victory, while a significant athletic achievement, ultimately failed to resonate as a unifying cultural moment for the nation, largely due to their own actions in the immediate aftermath of their win. Instead of transcending the political divides that plague the country, they seemed to lean into them, creating a narrative that fractured rather than unified. The presence of FBI Director Kash Patel in the locker room, captured in leaked videos, immediately injected a political element into the celebration. This, coupled with a call from President Trump that appeared to mock the women’s team’s White House invitation, cast a shadow over their accomplishment.
The team’s seeming willingness to engage with the political figures, even appearing at the State of the Union, suggested a naivete or a deliberate choice to align themselves with a particular political faction, rather than embracing a broader sense of national pride. This stands in stark contrast to the perceived silence or even disparagement from the administration towards female athletes who had achieved similar successes during the Games. The men’s team’s actions, in this light, amplified the existing perception that the administration cared less about women’s sports and more about leveraging certain victories for political gain.
The disappointment stems from the optics and the apparent disregard for their fellow female athletes. Despite statements of support and attendance at women’s games throughout the Olympics, the post-game celebrations seemed to erase that solidarity. The reported laughter during the call with the President, where the women’s team was seemingly trivialized, felt like a betrayal of the camaraderie that should exist within Team USA. This perceived disrespect, especially given the significant contributions of women to the overall success of Team USA during the Games, felt hollow and disheartening.
Furthermore, the context of hockey culture itself is often cited as a contributing factor. The sport has historically been perceived as less progressive than others, with a significant number of athletes often aligning with right-leaning political views, and many coming from privileged backgrounds that insulate them from certain societal realities. This background, combined with a singular focus on hockey from a young age, might explain why the expectation that the men’s team would somehow spearhead a progressive cultural moment was, in retrospect, perhaps unrealistic.
The division the team created is, in itself, a reflection of the current cultural moment in America. While they won gold, they also cemented themselves as the choice for one political side, effectively alienating others. The women’s team, by virtue of being women in sports and often facing political scrutiny, has inadvertently become a champion for the other side. This polarization, where even a sporting victory becomes a partisan issue, is precisely the cultural landscape the men’s team navigated and, arguably, exacerbated.
There’s a sentiment that perhaps the team was not equipped or inclined to rise to the occasion. The argument is made that they are young men, often with limited formal education due to their athletic pursuits, and were caught up in extraordinary circumstances. The spontaneous nature of celebrations, the presence of powerful figures, and the heat of the moment could have led to reflexive actions and laughter that, in hindsight, appear deeply problematic. However, others counter that even in such moments, there’s a responsibility to uphold certain values, drawing parallels to historical figures who demonstrated defiance and principle even when facing immense pressure and lack of support.
Ultimately, the USA men’s hockey team’s failure to meet the cultural moment lies in their inability to present themselves as a unified force for national pride, detached from divisive politics. Their actions, whether born of naivete, deliberate alignment, or simply being swept up in the moment, contributed to a broader narrative of division. The gold medal became less about a shared American triumph and more about a partisan win, leaving no one emerging truly well from the situation. The stark contrast between their celebratory interactions and the administration’s previous stance on women’s sports highlighted a missed opportunity for genuine, inclusive national unity.