The Canada-USA rivalry is one of the fiercest in international sports, defined by decades of intense competition, particularly in hockey. But while the battle for supremacy on the ice has always been intense, the 4 Nations Face-off Final took on a significance far beyond sports. In an era of rising geopolitical tensions, the game became a flashpoint for broader political narratives, with the media seizing on everything from nationalist rhetoric to diplomatic rifts to frame the showdown. This wasn’t just about winning a championship—it was about national pride, political identity, and the larger forces shaping public discourse.
Coverage of the final was charged with symbolism, with pointed remarks, political statements, and moments such as national anthem lyric changes and reactions fueling media engagement.
While recent political developments have increased tensions and uncertainty on both sides of the border, the media certainly did not shy away from capitalizing on this to increase engagement for an otherwise unremarkable mid-season tournament. Our media analysis team breaks down the coverage here.
The Politicization of Sports in Media
While political themes can be found in sports-reporting, nearly 25% of coverage on the 4 Nations Face-Off final contained political narratives. These political narratives focused on President Donald Trump’s comments about making Canada the “51st state,” coverage on the tariffs and the potential trade war, and comments made by fans and politicians following the game. With the final taking place on February 20th, the politicization of the event started gaining traction on February 19th, noting a sharp increase on the day of the final. Coverage then peaked on February 21st, the day after the final as Canada’s victory signaled a victory beyond the ice.
This graphic shows how the prevalent political narratives have trended among the 4 Nations Face-off final coverage.
Neither country shied away from the political narratives either. Of all the media coverage on the 4 Nations Face-off final originating in Canada and the United States, 19% stemmed from Canada while a staggering 81% stemmed from the United States. However, the stakes were higher for the Great White North given the recent political developments and comments made by their neighbours in the South. Canadian media outlets tapped into this, with almost 40% of Canada’s coverage adopting a political narrative while covering the game. Meanwhile, only 21% of American coverage focused on the political aspects surrounding the final.
This graphic shows the percentage of coverage on the 4 Nations Face-off final that had a political narrative in Canada and the United States.
Key Narratives in the Media
When analyzing media coverage of the 4 Nations Face-off final, Canadian and American media outlets adopted similar media narratives, focusing on recent developments and comments, themes of nationalism and identity, and the variety of reactions.
Heightened Geopolitical Tensions:
Coverage from both countries highlighted how escalating geopolitical tensions raised the stakes of the game. The media framed the final against the backdrop of tariff threats and President Donald Trump’s comments about Canada becoming the “51st state” of the United States. The Toronto Star emphasized how the game had “taken on increased significance” due to “Trump’s threats of sweeping tariffs on Canadian products and repeated suggestions the U.S. should absorb Canada as its 51st state.” Similarly, the Boston Globe noted that the long-standing hockey rivalry had “intensified after Trump threatened a tariff war and expressed a wish to make Canada the 51st US state.” The media capitalized on these developments, amplifying the significance of the final and framing it as more than just a championship game.
This media strategy echoed past instances where sports became a stand-in for broader political conflicts. The 1980 “Miracle on Ice” remains a famous example—an Olympic hockey match that symbolized Cold War tensions and American resilience against the Soviet Union. While the stakes of the 4 Nations final were different, the media employed similar tactics, portraying Canada’s victory as a symbolic response to Trump’s rhetoric and U.S. economic pressure. By intertwining politics with sports, the media transformed a mid-season tournament into a cultural flashpoint, drawing engagement beyond traditional hockey audiences and reinforcing the idea that international competition often extends far beyond the game itself.
Nationalism, National Pride, and Identity:
Another key political narrative adopted by the media focused on the impact the game had on the national identity and pride of the viewers. In the build-up to the game, the Canadian media highlighted how the political climate intensified national pride and the desire to win, turning the game into more than just a sporting event. Outlets such as the Toronto Star directly linked a potential Canadian victory to a surge in national pride, reporting that 78% of Canadians believe hockey is a core part of Canada’s national identity, with 60% of Canadians considering the final to be even more meaningful given the threats to Canada’s economy and sovereignty, and 40% suggesting that victory would increase their pride in Canada.
While Canadian outlets used national identity to build anticipation, American outlets examined how the game reinforced Canadian nationalism after the final. Following Canada’s 3-2 overtime victory, American outlets discussed how Canadians reacted and celebrated the victory. A significant focus of America’s political narrative was on how Canadians used the event to respond to Trump’s comments and affirm their nationalism. For example, Rolling Stone discussed how the Canadian national anthem singer, Chantal Kreviazuk, changed the lyrics of O Canada from “in all of us command” to “that only us command” as a response to Trump’s threats of annexation. Outlets such as USA Today and the Washington Post discussed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reaction to the final, quoting his X post, “You can’t take our country — and you can’t take our game,” which they considered a “short but powerful” message to President Donald Trump.
This graphic depicts the key words and phrases dominating the 4N coverage
Ultimately, the media transformed the game into a symbolic battle, reinforcing how sports serve as a powerful outlet for national pride and political expression, particularly in times of heightened geopolitical tension.
Conclusion: Being political pays off
Consequently, these media tactics paid off as political narratives contributed to heightened interest and viewership. The game was described as the most anticipated hockey game in years, drawing comparisons to the “Miracle on Ice” during the Cold War. The game averaged 9.25 million viewers, making it the fourth most-watched NHL game in history and the most-watched since 1988.
Beyond the record-breaking viewership, the coverage demonstrated the media’s ability to shape public perception, transforming a mid-season tournament into a cultural and political event. For PR professionals, this serves as a case study in the power of narrative framing—how aligning a story with prevailing political or social tensions can drive engagement, shape public sentiment, and elevate an event’s significance. The success of this media strategy also highlights the importance of timing, as coverage surged in response to external political rhetoric, proving that strategic messaging tied to current affairs can amplify audience interest. As political divides deepen, PR professionals should anticipate and leverage these intersections, understanding that sports—and by extension, brands, institutions, and public figures—are increasingly drawn into broader cultural conversations that go far beyond the game itself.
This research was conducted by Agility PR Solutions’ team of media analysis experts.
