Fighting in professional ice hockey: it's time for a change.

Ice hockey has long been defined by a level of violence not seen in other sports. The rough-and-tough vigilante nature of the game was often employed as a method of enticing fans. Play in the National Hockey League (NHL) evolved throughout the 20th century as the rules governing it did. The nuances of what was allowed on the ice was slowly defined, but the league always fell short of an outright ban on fighting. Notably, the NHL allows fighting while international and Olympic leagues do not. Proponents of fighting's continued presence in the NHL argue that it can attract fans, facilitate momentum changes, help win games, and allows for social regulation on the ice. However, analyses of these theories have found little definitive evidence, calling the utility of fighting into question. The economics of fighting in hockey reveal high salary payouts, increased cost of injury, and a lack of correlation with ticket sales. Additionally, there is a concern for concussions sustained during fighting which has the potential for long term, detrimental mental health effects for athletes. In this analysis, we explore the history and evolution of fighting in the NHL, as well as the reasons behind its continued presence in the game, the risks associated with fighting, and the economics behind it all. Based upon these bodies of evidence, we make a proposal regarding the future of fighting in the NHL.