Putin's friend who became NHL’s all-time goals scorer
How the case of Alexander Ovechkin helps us understand the importance of hockey for Russia
Sunday, April 6, 2025, UBS Arena in New York.
The New York Islanders are facing the Washington Capitals. The score is 2-0 for the New York Islanders.
The Capitals are attacking. Alexander Ovechkin receives the puck on the left and, after controlling it, unleashes a missile that ends up in the net.
The player runs in the opposite direction and throws himself stomach-down onto the ice. It's a messy, exaggerated celebration. As are the commentator's scream and the roar of the stadium.
But there is a more than valid reason for all this. Because that isn't just a simple goal. That is a historic moment for the NHL. Ovechkin has just scored his 895th goal, surpassing the record held by Wayne Gretzky, which had lasted for 26 years.
The game stops, and a celebration is put in place to honour Ovechkin.
The match will resume and end 4-1 for the New York Islanders. But what happens next is much more interesting than what happened on the ice.
“It was so emotional. Such a beautiful evening. I'll probably need a couple of days, maybe a couple of weeks, to understand what it means to be number 1," says Ovechkin after the game, visibly emotional.
The next day, an official note arrives from none other than the Kremlin:
“This achievement is not only your personal success, but also a real reason for celebration for fans in Russia and abroad.”
Yes, Alexander Ovechkin is Russian, plays in the NHL and has become the most prolific scorer in the league's history.
And for those wondering about Ovechkin's relationship with Putin, visit the player's Instagram account and check the profile picture. The one next to him is indeed the President of Russia.
And it is precisely that photo that has reignited the political spotlight, both on the player and on the sport.
Image: ames Carey Lauder-Imagn Image
Putin's man?
There has always been a suspicious aura around Russian athletes competing in the West, and in North American ice hockey, this prejudice is even more marked. In a context marked by complicated relations between the United States and Russia, Russian NHL players are often observed through a political lens. They represent the "best" of a controversial country within a league that is the most competitive in the world. In this latent tension, every goal, every victory, seems to carry something bigger than the game itself.
Alexander Ovechkin has experienced all this firsthand. Originally from Moscow, he arrived in the NHL in 2004 as the first pick of the Washington Capitals. In his debut, he scored two goals against the Blue Jackets, and within a week the technical staff realized they had an extraordinary talent on their hands. At the end of his rookie season, Ovechkin had scored 52 goals and distributed 54 assists, winning the Calder Trophy as the league's best rookie.
From that moment on, his career has been a ride without brakes: he broke records, won individual trophies and led the Capitals to victory in the Stanley Cup in 2018, lifting the trophy and also taking home the Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP. His physical power, combined with exceptional technique, made him a nightmare for opposing goaltenders. His shot from the left, dubbed "The Ovi Office," became iconic.
But the shadow of politics has never stopped following him. And it's not just an external projection: in 2017, Ovechkin launched a social media initiative called 'Putin Team'. With the aim of "uniting people proud of the country and eager to strengthen Russia," extolling the "trust, respect, justice and righteousness" embodied – according to him – by Vladimir Putin.
Since then, his image has often ended up under the spotlight. Unlike other colleagues, like Artemi Panarin, who did not hesitate to criticize Putin, calling him "confused between what is right and what is wrong," Ovechkin preferred a low-profile attitude.
Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, when questioned by journalists about his relationship with Putin, he replied, "Well, he is my president." Subsequently, he posted a generic appeal for peace: "Please, no more war. It doesn't matter who is involved: Russia, Ukraine or other countries."
An excellent way to pretend to say something without actually saying anything. Because such a statement is neither an explicit condemnation of the military action, nor does it represent a distancing. It's the way one cleans up one's image in an era where people still think they can end a war through an Instagram story. But is it right to expect a stronger stance from an athlete?
Since the conflict began, there is one thing that hasn't changed. The profile picture of Ovechkin's Instagram account shows him together with Vladimir Putin. And if on the one hand, he reiterates that he is "not a politician but an athlete," on the other, his silence weighs heavily, especially in light of the visibility and influence he exerts, not only at home but globally.
Despite having lived in the United States for almost twenty years and being a globally recognized sports icon, his symbolic link with Putin continues to accompany him like a second invisible jersey. All this risks being interpreted not only as the pinnacle of Russian athleticism but also as a soft power tool showcased by the Kremlin.
Boycotts
After the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the hockey world also found itself facing a choice: take sides. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) reacted immediately, suspending Russia and Belarus from all competitions under its aegis.
The NHL also took a clear stance:
“We condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and call for a peaceful resolution as soon as possible. We immediately suspend relationships with our business partners in Russia and pause all our Russian-language digital channels.”
However, alongside this public position, the League immediately clarified another point: its concern for the "well-being of Russian players who play in the NHL on behalf of their teams, and not on behalf of Russia."
This is where the ambiguities began. Initially, Russian athletes were prevented from participating in sporting events. Like, for example, at the Beijing Paralympics and Wimbledon in 2022. Over time, this situation changed, with Russian athletes being readmitted, as long as they did not defend the Russian flag and did not support the aggression against Ukraine. And they were allowed to compete as neutrals, as happened at the Paris Olympics.
For NHL players, nothing has changed since the beginning of the war. As they have been able to continue playing without problems. The League has never put pressure on them. On the contrary, it defended them, highlighting the personal difficulties they might face; although, as some critics point out, there is no concrete evidence of retaliation against the families of dissident athletes.
Paul Romanuk, a Canadian hockey journalist, expressed the ambiguity of the Ovechkin situation:
“Imagine if Sidney Crosby had a profile picture with his arm around Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein. The outrage would be immediate. The League would ask him to remove it instantly.”
Yet, Ovechkin has never received official reprimands.
The answer perhaps lies in sporting value. If boycotting Russia as a national entity is relatively simple — no World Championships, no anthem, no flag — doing so when it involves an important and famous star becomes much more difficult.
“I have no respect for the man and his political opinions. I will continue to wonder why the NHL turned its back on the issue, letting the elephant in the room — Ovechkin's support for Putin — go unnoticed,” said Romanuk.
“The part of me that loves hockey admires his exploits on the ice. But I won't raise my glass when he breaks Gretzky's record.”
Dominik Hašek, a legend from the Czech Republic and an increasingly active voice against the invasion, was also very harsh:
“Russia is committing terrible crimes, including genocide against Ukrainian children. Every citizen is an advertisement for their country's actions. And Ovechkin today is a gigantic advertisement for the aggressive Russian war.”
So, it is legitimate to wonder what would have happened if Ovechkin had taken a strong stance. Let's assume he had changed his profile picture and made important statements against Putin. What effects would such actions have had on the war and the Russian President's decisions? Most likely, none.
And what if the NHL had prevented Russian players from playing? Not even this would have affected Putin.
The Western world reacted strongly — at least symbolically — to Russian aggression. We banned teams, flags, sponsors. We cancelled economic agreements, turned off gas taps, and boycotted athletes. But none of this made the war end.
These were all actions and decisions taken with the will and hope of causing damage to Russia. With the desire that this could end the conflict as soon as possible. But thinking that if a hockey player changes his profile picture or is prevented from playing, it can affect the war, means that our view of the world needs an urgent review and a refresher of realism and cynicism.
Sport, whatever it may be, does not have the strength to stop a war. Sport comes later. When the decisions at the top have been made. It serves as a tool of influence and narrative.
This does not detract from its importance, like that of hockey for Russia. But one must always analyze case by case and understand how far and for what it is important.
This is precisely one of the objectives of this newsletter.
So let's try to do it today, too, with hockey and Russia.
The Importance of Hockey for Russia
To better understand the complex relationship between hockey and politics, it is essential to take a step back and recognize the specific weight that this sport has had and still has for Moscow. The history of Soviet, then Russian, ice hockey is intrinsically linked to national identity and power dynamics.
Unlike the West, where hockey took its first steps in the nineteenth century, the introduction of this sport in the Soviet Union occurred much later. In 1945, some Soviet sports officials witnessed some National Hockey League (NHL) games. Impressed by the spectacle, they decided to create their national team: the one that would later become the legendary CCCP (USSR). At a time when the popularity of football was decreasing, the creation of the Soviet Championship in 1946 and the formation of the national team shortly after (with the first exhibitions in 1948) marked a turning point.
The construction of this team was not left to chance. A sort of military conscription was put in place to recruit the best talents in the country. Majestic propaganda was built around this initiative. So much so that for many young Soviet boys, joining the CCCP became a dream. In the end, 25 prominent players were selected, among whom emerged a quintet that went down in history as the "Russian Five": Sergei Makarov, Aleksandr Maltsev, Valeri Kharlamov, Boris Mikhailov and Vladimir Petrov, capable of totalling a combined 1,016 points in the national team jersey.
But how did the Soviet Union manage to become a hockey superpower in such a short time? The answer lies in the figure of Anatoli Tarasov. The mind of Soviet hockey. Commissioned by Stalin after the Second World War to create a national ice hockey program, Tarasov developed a unique approach.
He integrated elements taken from classical dance, chess, and bandy (field hockey played on ice), subjecting players to unorthodox training. Furthermore, the players lived together for much of the year and played in the same five-man units for several consecutive years.
The result was a revolutionary style. The emphasis on collective play and superfine technique became the hallmark of Soviet hockey. Allowing the team to rout opponents and become the strongest in the world.
But the success of the CCCP on the ice extended far beyond mere sporting competition. In the context of the Cold War, every international encounter, particularly against the United States, held immense political significance. Winning was not merely about national pride; it was a demonstration of the asserted superiority of the Soviet and communist system over the Western capitalist one. Hockey games quickly transformed into more than just sports.
Hockey and Geopolitics
They became a platform for a proxy war, establishing the complex intertwining of sport and geopolitics that continues to define this sport today. The rivalry was intense, and the pressure on Soviet athletes was immense.
According to John Soares, geopolitical issues began to clash with ice hockey immediately after the Second World War. An example was when Czechoslovakia hosted (and won) the world championships in 1947. At that historic moment, the country still had a democratic government, despite strong Soviet communist influence. It would become a fully communist state in 1948, shortly before the Olympics.
Tensions continued to manifest in various ways in those years.
In 1956, a year after the USSR's triumphant debut on the international hockey scene with Olympic gold, the Soviets were preparing to host the world championships in Moscow in 1957. However, the previous Soviet invasion of Hungary led to a boycott of the tournament by Western countries, including the United States, Canada, and Switzerland.
The Soviets also had their chance to boycott in 1962, when the United States hosted the world championships in Colorado. Since Western nations did not recognize East Germany, the Travel Bureau did not issue visas to the East German team, prompting the communist teams (Soviet and Czechoslovak) to boycott in solidarity.
In this climate, the Soviet hockey program became a mirror of the structure and values of the government. For the USSR, hockey represented an opportunity to achieve important athletic and ideological victories. They created a unique and ruthlessly effective system for "collective hockey," a practical application of communist principles. And it worked extraordinarily well.
From 1963, the Soviets won nine consecutive world championships. Unlike the amateur teams of the time, many of the best Soviet players trained full-time with the national team, enjoyed long breaks to prepare for international tournaments, and were paid. They dominated the All-Star tournaments in the '70s, narrowly lost the 1972 Summit Series against Canada, and in 1979 humiliated the NHL All-Stars at Madison Square Garden, winning 6-0.
The pinnacle of this rivalry was undoubtedly the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. Recounted in the film "Miracle," which defines the surprise US victory over the Soviet Union as "the greatest moment in sports history." A group of American college kids defeated the best team in the world, an event to which history has almost granted the same importance as the Cuban missile crisis.
It is interesting to note that, despite the real political tensions, there is not much evidence to suggest that politicians from either country ever ordered their players and coaching staff to take explicit political positions. Success on the ice sent a sufficiently strong ideological message.
The Cold War is now a distant memory, but hockey continues to be a sensitive ground for geopolitical tensions. Recently, relations between the United States and Canada have experienced moments of friction, also reflected on the ice.
During the 4 Nations Face-Off tournament in Boston, played amidst the tensions following the announcement of tariffs by the US and Donald Trump's "threats" to make Canada the 51st American state, the national anthems were greeted with volleys of whistles. After Canada's 3-2 overtime victory in the final against the USA, former Premier Justin Trudeau posted on X: «You can't take our country - and you can't take our game».
Staying with recent events, there was also room for hockey during the phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The main topic was the war in Ukraine, but the two leaders reportedly found time to discuss the organization of a hockey game between players from their respective countries, involving athletes from the NHL and the KHL. Trump, according to Moscow, supported Putin's idea.
This proposal, apparently extemporaneous, however, takes on a deeper meaning when read in the current context. For Putin, bringing Russia back onto the global hockey stage, perhaps in a high-profile event with the USA, would represent an important victory in terms of "soft power," especially at a time of international isolation.
This episode underscores once again how hockey remains a tool, or at least a reflection, of international dynamics. To fully understand why this sport is so relevant to today's Russia, it is useful to observe the personal and almost visceral relationship that binds Vladimir Putin to hockey.
How Putin used hockey
The fall of the Soviet Union not only marked an epochal geopolitical change but also had profound repercussions on the ice. With the collapse of the system that had nurtured it, the number of players trained in the Soviet-style began to decrease. The residual influence of that school slowly faded.
Although great Russian talents continued to emerge, their way of playing was increasingly indistinguishable from that of the North American or Scandinavian elites. Mutual contamination led to homogenization. Hockey improved in North America but perhaps lost something in Russia. In the absence of a clear stylistic contrast, the clashes between East and West lost part of their charm and symbolic charge.
They became, in short, just games. What remained to infuse these challenges with extra-sporting meaning was patriotism and hostility. The migration of the best talents to the NHL, attracted by better salaries and greater fame, represented a further psychological blow for a nation accustomed to dominating its rival on the ice.
It is in this context that Vladimir Putin came into play. Aware of the symbolic value of sport, Putin saw hockey as a powerful tool to rebuild national pride and project the image of a rediscovered Russia.
A striking example was the involvement of Viacheslav Fetisov, a hockey legend who had fought the Soviet system to be able to play in North America. At Putin's urging, Fetisov returned to Russia after the end of his NHL career to help revitalize the national sports apparatus.
He held the position of Minister of Sport, contributing to the organization of the Sochi Olympics, and was subsequently elected to the upper house of the Russian parliament. The man who had challenged the system had become an integral part of it, with the stated mission of using sport to strengthen patriotism. As Fetisov himself said: "I am part of a government system that seeks to return pride to the people."
The use that the Kremlin made of sport after the implosion of the Soviet Union has often been underestimated. Starting with football, which I discussed in this article. On Putin's agenda, the sport still represents a tool of fundamental importance for projecting a positive image of Russia, but above all for broadening its influence as much as possible.
In this framework, the creation of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) represents perhaps the most emblematic example of the use of hockey. Founded in 2008, the KHL quickly became the strongest professional ice hockey league in Europe and Asia, considered in 2015 the second in the world only behind the NHL. From the beginning, the league's sporting objectives were aligned with those of the Kremlin: the KHL is directed by members of Putin's inner circle and funded by a combination of state-owned companies and oligarchs close to him.
The strategy was clear: use a high-quality and entertaining sports league to create more favourable public opinion towards Russia, especially in the heart of Eastern Europe, a region historically wary of Moscow's ambitions. By bringing the KHL to cities like Riga (Latvia) and Bratislava (Slovakia), Russia leveraged not only the shared love for hockey but also an area of clear competitive advantage. Western European hockey simply could not compete with the Russian version in terms of quality and interest. In one fell swoop, Russia could highlight the cultural differences between East and West, promote common ground with the region, and, above all, show itself as a dominant force.
At its peak, the KHL hosted teams from Belarus, Kazakhstan, China, Finland, Latvia, and Slovakia, thus establishing "solid frontiers" within EU and NATO member countries. In states like Slovakia, traditionally more pro-Russian than other EU members, the KHL helped reinforce a positive image of Russia.
Another strategic advantage of the KHL was the link created between the motherland and the Russian diaspora, especially in the Baltic States, where Russian minorities are significant. Seeing Russian teams play, with logos of Russian sponsors everywhere, helped strengthen the sense of belonging and connection of these communities with Moscow.
Furthermore, the KHL allowed Russian companies to gain positive advertising directly on EU territory, in a way circumventing economic sanctions: while European bureaucrats imposed penalties, European fans cheered for a league organized and sponsored precisely by the entities affected by those sanctions.
However, this soft power tool showed its limits. Even before the large-scale Ukrainian crisis, HC Slovan Bratislava had withdrawn from the KHL due to financial problems in 2019. But the hardest blow came after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Finnish club Jokerit and the Latvian club Dinamo Riga announced their withdrawal from the league in protest. The NHL also reacted by suspending its Memorandum of Understanding with the KHL and instructing its teams to immediately cease all contact with the Russian league and its clubs.
Despite these setbacks, the KHL experience demonstrates how hockey has never been just a game for post-Soviet Russia. It has been, and still is, an integral part of a broader propaganda machine used to strengthen internal power and try to regain influence abroad.
Much more than a sport
We started by talking about Alexander Ovechkin, his record, and his controversial photo with Vladimir Putin, then explored the complex history of Russian hockey and its inextricable intertwining with geopolitics. From the Cold War to Putin's soft power attempts with the KHL.
But in the end, how was the Ovechkin case perceived by those who simply love the sport?
Many fans seem willing to give Ovechkin the benefit of the doubt. Most of those interviewed outside the stadium stated that they were not interested in the political part of the story. They are simply happy that Ovechkin plays and scores for their team. It strongly recalls the enthusiasm of Newcastle fans at the news of the acquisition of 80% of the club's shares by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund PIF. Would it be fair to expect more from the fans?
While preparing this article, I was fortunate to come across the piece ‘Cold War Puck: The Beauties of Russian Hockey’ written by Nick Paumgarten for The New Yorker in 2014. I liked the ending so much that I decided to report it without making any changes. As Danny Vinyard (played by Edward Furlong) says at the end of American History X:
“Derek says it's always good to end a paper with a quote. He says someone else has already said it best. So if you can't top it, steal from them and go out strong."
Here then is the ending of the article written by Nick Paumgarten in 2014, in which the journalist also concluded using the words of Viacheslav Fetisov.
‘I asked him [Viacheslav Fetisov] if, in light of the deterioration in relations between the United States and Russia (“It’s never been this bad,” he said. “Never.”), he foresaw a return to the kind of Cold War rooting interests and political significance that infused international competition in his playing days.
“You think Washington Capitals fans are going to hate Ovechkin now, because he’s Russian? Sounds funny. Do I think the Russian hockey team wants to beat U.S. team because Obama is President? It sounds like a funny thing. They want to beat them because they are good hockey players and want to win. For me as a player, it didn’t matter what kind of political system there was. I had my games, I had my practices. I wasn’t thinking about a fucking Politburo guy during those years. I didn’t give a shit.”
But we did. So did the Politburo guy. And though the antagonism may have brought on bigotry, misery, and ignorance, it also made for beautiful, meaningful hockey. Was it worth it?
Sources:
https://www.dw.com/en/ovechkin-breaks-nhl-goal-record-but-putin-link-casts-shadow/a-72046269
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/world/europe/ovechkin-putin-russia-nhl.html
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/06/alex-ovechkin-nhl-scoring-record
https://apnews.com/article/trump-putin-hockey-series-d720274e74a35882fcb5c1a99fa295d2
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6213594/2025/03/18/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-usa-russia-hockey/
https://www.calcioefinanza.it/2025/03/19/partite-hockey-russia-usa-trump-putin/
https://www.backsportspage.com/the-impact-of-russians-in-the-nhl/
https://www.playthegame.org/news/dancing-on-ice-russia-hockey-and-soft-power/
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/cold-war-puck-beauties-russian-hockey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontinental_Hockey_League