The game of hockey has always been one that revolves around toughness and grit, players are constantly asked to continue playing through injuries, and to sacrifice their bodies in order to win. Fighting has long been considered an effective tactic to help win games in professional hockey, players who are known as enforcers fight to stand up for or protect teammates, or even to swing a game's momentum in favor of their team. Recently, there have been questions raised about fighting in professional hockey, as many people now believe that it is obsolete, and does more harm than good. Opposing this idea, hockey purists claim that without fighting, the game will fall apart. This argument on whether or not fighting should remain in professional hockey effects many people, from fans of the game, to players and owners, each group has its own interests and beliefs. Many fans and critics see this issue as a grey area, but it is crystal clear that fighting should no longer have a place in professional hockey, as it endangers players, and their safety should be the priority. Without fighting in professional hockey, the game would be safer for all of the players in every league.

There are two different groups when it comes to fighting in hockey, those that want fighting to remain in all professional hockey leagues, and those that want fighting to be banned from all facets of the game. The pro fighting camp consists mainly of fans who watch the game for the fights, executives, some players, and media companies. The group that wants fighting gone consists mainly of doctors and select players and fans. John Buccigross, a popular ESPN anchor and columnist who covers the NHL wrote "The pros and cons of fighting in the NHL" back in 2007 when the debate was just starting to gain a head of steam. Buccigross does a great job of outlining the issues that surround fighting, and covering both sides of the argument saying "Fights can add entertainment value, change a game and have fans talking for days ...  Still, I find it difficult to comprehend that people come to NHL games for fights." Here Buccigross does an excellent job outlining why people enjoy fighting so much, as it has the chance to change the outcome of the game if it is executed properly. It also adds excitement to a game that is already one of the most exciting in sports, by giving it some unpredictability, which will have fans talking and generating publicity for the league for days to come. This is why fans and executives want fighting to stay in the NHL, as for fans it adds excitement and for the executives and owners, it generates interest, which in turn generates more money for the league. Buccigross then outlines how, even though fighting adds to the sport, it should never be what draws fans to the games, as fights are not a guaranteed occurrence, and they are not and should not be the main selling point. While this is not the main opposition to fighting, it is a good point, if the NHL really wants the league to gain fans, it should do so through promotion of the sport as a whole, not just through the sheer violence of fighting. In "The Sports Ethicist Show: Hockey Fighting", a podcast about the ethics of sports, the host of the show highlights the two sides of the arguments in a similar fashion to Buccigross. He first highlights the pro fighting side of the game, saying that fighting can be used by teams to intimidate opponents and gain an upper hand. He also goes on to talk about how fighting offers a sort of balance between offense and defense in hockey, as without fighting to help teams out, the game would start to favor an offensive brand of game. This would be bad for the game, as it would focus more and more on offense, and essentially forget about defense, causing rosters and games to be lopsided and high scoring. Potentially the best argument in favor of fighting outlined in this podcast is that fighting occurs occasionally as a result of the extreme physicality of the game, the hits and slashes will occasionally boil over into fights. Having played hockey for my entire life, I can personally say that this is true, fights happen naturally due to frustration or desperation. Players can fight to release this frustration, which helps to keep dirty plays out of the game, as all of the frustration is released during the fight. While this last argument in particular is compelling, it does not necessarily justify fighting, as the safety of players should be the most important aspect of the game, and fighting puts players at risk of serious injury.

The opposing argument of why fighting should remain in the game, is adopted by hockey purists, fans, executives, and many players, both past and present. It centers on fighting being beneficial to the game, and is the more popular opinion for the fans of the NHL and all other leagues. Brandon Prust, current AHL, and former NHL left winger wrote for the Player's Tribune on why fighting should stay in the NHL in "Why we fight". Prust talks about how enforcers, or players who fight, protect the smaller and more skilled players in the league. Prust writes: "There's a mutual respect between enforcers. Guys who don't honor the code are called rats. Rats are the guys who show zero respect for opponents." This respect is often talked about by current and former NHL players, who cite "the code" as the main reason hockey should keep fighting in the game. This code is the unwritten rule book of the NHL, where players who give out cheap shots, slashes, illegal high hits, or illegal hits from behind, are expected to answer the bell, and fight an enforcer from the opposing team. This works as a sort of self-policing, players know that if they give out a cheap shot, they are going to be forced to fight, or face life as rat. If fighting were taken away from the game, it would potentially mean that these rats could get away with cheap shots, as the enforcers would be unable to stand up and fight for their teammates, meaning the rats would go unpunished, with nothing to deter them from giving out more cheap shots. Again, drawing on my experience in hockey, this is not necessarily true, if games were officiated more strictly, this would offset cheap shots. Also, self-policing could potentially still stay in the game, if  one player cheap shots another, the victims team could just as easily do the same to the offender's teammate. This would create equality between teams, and encourage teams to play clean, as the negatives would heavily outweigh the positives. Supporters such as Adrian Dater, author of "Many argue that fighting is a necessary part of professional hockey" believe that fighting should be kept in the game because of its entertainment value. He argues that fighting is a big draw for fans of the NHL, they watch and go to games because of the fighting, and without it, and the league would suffer lower attendance rates. This would be bad for players and for executives, as it would lead to significantly less revenue, and less people attending each game. Again however, this is not true, if fighting was banned, the NHL would gain fans who currently don't like the sport because of its violent nature. It would also begin to attract fans of the game, who focus more on the skill and speed of the game as opposed to the fights that occur. Prust and Kenneth Colburn, author of "Honor, Ritual and Violence in Ice Hockey", argue that without fighting in the game, many players who are in the league will lose their jobs, as fighting becomes more and more obsolete. Again, this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, as players who remained in the league because of their ability to fight, would be replaced by players who actually have skill or speed. This would lead to more exciting games, as all of the players would play at a higher level, adding to the intensity of an already intense sport. Other claims of support for fighting include those that argue that fighting can swing momentum in a game, if the fights or fighters are used strategically. This is an interesting claim, as it is somewhat true, fighting can swing games in favor of teams, but it is often the team that starts the fight, that ends up losing momentum, which causes the team to become flat, eventually leading to a loss. Strategy would change if fighting was banned, but this would be a good thing, as without fighters, coaches would be forced to use different strategies, and they would have more offensive or defensive weapons at their disposal, as there would be no fighters taking up valuable roster spots. This, again, would result in better, more fundamental hockey games that focus on skill and speed, making the game much more interesting and exciting. While all of these arguments have some merit, all of them ignore what is undoubtedly the most important aspect of the game, player safety.

Fighting has been an important part of the game of hockey for as long as it has been around, however, the more advanced that our medical technology gets, the more we understand just how bad fighting is for those that participate in the actual fights. Players are repeatedly exposed to brain injuries when they fight, and these injuries can lead to depression, memory loss, deterioration of motor skills, and even in some cases death. CTE, or Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is caused by repeated blows to the head, and an accumulation of concussions. The group that suffers most from this brain injury is enforcers in hockey. Many ex-players have admitted to suffering from symptoms of CTE, and in 2011, Derek Boogaard, Rick Rypien, and Wade Belak all passed away. Belak, Boogaard, and Rypien were all enforcers for their respective NHL teams, and all three showed signs of CTE in their brains after they passed away. This was really when the argument against fighting really started to become serious, as three former players all died suffering from the same disease. In February of 2015, longtime NHL defenseman Steve Montador died, at age 35, his brain was autopsied, and the doctors found that he suffered from CTE. David Haugh, author of "Steve Montador's death should prod NHL to ban fighting altogether" wrote about how Montador's death was only the tip of the iceberg. Montador was not exactly an enforcer, he got in his fair share of fights, but he came nowhere close to matching the number of fights that career enforcers get to, and his death was a result of CTE. The more players are exposed to fighting, the more likely they are to get CTE. Rajendra Kale, author of "Stop the violence and play hockey" writes that "This brutal tradition [fighting] should be given up now that research has shown that repeated head trauma can cause severe progressive brain damage." She goes on to talk about supporters of fighting argue that the game will lose excitement because of the lack of fights, and fans will flock to different sports. She then debunks this by citing that people were against banning smoking from restaurants and bars, and while many thought it would lead to a reduced number of customers, it did nothing, and now people are used to the law, and respect it. Kale then goes on to ask just how many brains of ex-players need to show CTE before the NHL and other professional leagues realize just how dangerous fighting can be for the players. In "The Morality of Fighting in Ice Hockey: Should It Be Banned", authors Ryan Lewinson and Oscar Palma talk about the unwritten code of rules in hockey, and how it is commonly thought that fighters always consent to their fights. However, this is not true, as many fighters face losing their jobs if they chose not to fight. Scott Parker, an ex-NHL enforcer talks about this in "Many argue that fighting is a necessary part of professional hockey". Parker states: "I knew there were risks associated with what I did...If you're hurt, it doesn't matter, you're made to think 'I have to fight, or I'll lose my job." This is a despicable strategy for NHL teams to employ, coaches threaten to send players down to the minor leagues if they don't continue to fight, whether they are hurt or not. This forces players to play through injuries and risk serious brain injuries just so they don't lose their jobs. The owners of teams want to get as much out of the players they are paying as possible, and they have no problem if their coaches bully players into playing through injuries. If fighting was banned from professional hockey, players would have much longer careers, as players would suffer less injuries, and they would be able to play for longer periods of time. This would ensure that owners would get the most out of their money, as players would have less injuries, and they would have to sit out less. This in turn would generate more money, as players draw in fans, and it would ensure that owners don't waste any money paying for players that were injured or had to end their career early due to injuries sustained from fighting. In "Fighting Behavior and Winning National Hockey League Games: A Paradox", author George Engelhardt writes about how it is a common thought that fighting can help win games for NHL or other professional hockey teams. Engelhardt disputes this, as writes how this is a common misconception, and that through a span of five years, teams showed a negative correlation between number of fights per game and final standings in the NHL. This shows that, against popular belief, fighting actually hurts NHL teams the more it happens, the less teams fight, the better they do. This adds even more fuel to the fire for those that argue against fighting. The negatives of fighting in professional hockey outweigh the positives, and this should eventually lead to the banning of fighting from professional hockey. 

While most people involved with hockey believe that fighting should remain in the game, the argument against fighting has gained steam, and will continue to gain steam until it eventually gets banned. The health of players should be the most important factor when considering fighting, and unfortunately as of right now, it is not. Owners and executives focus too much on money, but without the players to play the game, there will be no money to be made. Without fighting, CTE rates in hockey would drop, leading to longer and safer careers for the players that fans love. This would lead to increased attendance numbers and more fans watching worldwide, which would in turn lead to more revenue saved and produced for the owners. All in all, it is clear that fighting should and will eventually be banned from professional hockey.

