The NHL launched “Hot for Hockey” around opening week.
Seven short, romance-inspired audio stories. Real NHL players. Connor McDavid, Trevor Zegras, Sebastian Aho, Jack Eichel, Kyle Connor and Mika Zibanejad.
They went up on Spotify.
And less than a week later, they were gone.
No new episodes. The existing stories removed entirely. The league told Front Office Sports the campaign was always meant to be a one-week opening-week activation, despite Sports Business Journal previously reporting that stories would roll out “throughout the season.”
The series was averaging 2.4 stars on Spotify.
The NHLPA still hasn’t publicly commented.
So, what the hell was that?
The strange part is that the insight behind it wasn’t wrong.
The NHL saw a real opportunity
Hockey romance is bringing new people into hockey.
That matters.
There is a growing audience finding the sport through places that have very little to do with traditional hockey media. TikTok. BookTok. Streaming shows. Romance novels. Creator content. Fashion. Celebrity fandom.
The NHL should absolutely be paying attention to that.
There is real opportunity in understanding how someone goes from watching Heated Rivalry or reading a hockey romance novel to watching an actual NHL game.
The mistake was in the translation.
The NHL saw:
Hockey romance is bringing people into hockey.
And turned it into:
Let’s make NHL marketing look like hockey romance.
Those aren’t the same thing.
The problem wasn’t hockey romance
The takeaway here shouldn’t be that the NHL should stop marketing to women.
Or stop paying attention to hockey romance.
Or stop experimenting.
I actually think the league should be experimenting more.
The problem is that women aren’t one marketing persona. Neither are romance readers, BookTok users or new hockey fans.
The NHL identified a real cultural entry point and then made that entry point the campaign itself.
And somewhere in that process, it stopped feeling like the league was participating in the culture and started feeling like it was marketing at the people inside it.
Several hockey romance authors publicly criticized the campaign. Bestselling author Emily Rath said the NHL had approached her about participating and that she declined.
That’s useful information.
Because there is a difference between building with a community and building marketing around your interpretation of that community.
Compare it with what the NHL was doing at the exact same time
At roughly the same time, the NHL announced Black Box Wines as its first official wine partner, including a “Wine Wednesdays” activation around Wednesday night hockey.
Strategically, the difference is interesting.
Wine Wednesdays starts with a behaviour.
People are watching hockey at home on Wednesday nights.
Some of them drink wine.
Can you build a ritual around something they’re already doing?
“Hot for Hockey” started somewhere else.
Women are increasingly engaging with hockey romance.
So let’s create romance-style NHL content.
One starts with audience behaviour.
The other starts with an assumption about audience identity.
That’s an important distinction.
The best cultural marketing usually doesn’t begin with “How do we turn this trend into our campaign?”
It starts with understanding what people are already doing, why they care and where the brand can add something without trying to own the entire thing.
There is also a player side to this
The NHL repeatedly pointed out that the players featured in “Hot for Hockey” approved the use of their names and likenesses and approved the creative.
Good.
That should be the baseline.
But player consent and player strategy aren’t the same thing.
If I’m advising an athlete being asked to participate in something like this, I’m asking more than whether they are comfortable with a 60-second audio story.
I’m asking:
Why does this make sense for this player?
How is their name and likeness being positioned?
What happens when the content leaves the league’s controlled channels?
Is this actually building something for the player’s personal brand?
And who carries the reputational risk if the campaign goes sideways?
Because this is the part that outlives the campaign.
The league can delete the episodes and move on.
The players can’t delete their names from the headlines, screenshots, social posts and search results.
That matters as leagues continue experimenting with memes, fan culture, AI, creator-style content and other marketing formats involving real athletes.
Approval is one piece of the decision.
It shouldn’t be the whole decision.
So what was “Hot for Hockey”?
A good insight with a bad execution.
The NHL was right to notice that people are entering hockey through non-traditional channels.
It was right to experiment outside the usual hockey marketing playbook.
But someone who discovers hockey through Heated Rivalry doesn’t necessarily want the NHL to make its own version of Heated Rivalry.
They might want more access to player personalities.
Better storytelling.
Creators who can help them understand the sport.
A stronger sense of community.
Or simply a sign that the league understands they’re part of the audience now.
The job isn’t to recreate the thing that brought someone through the door.
It’s to figure out what makes them stay.
That’s the part sports marketers, leagues and athlete advisors should pay attention to.
Don’t just ask:
How do we capitalize on this trend?
Ask:
What is this community telling us about how they want to experience our sport?
“Hot for Hockey” is a pretty good example of what happens when you skip that question.