Perhaps some background is order. During these NHL play-offs, the fans of the Stars have taken to shouting, in unison, the word "stars" as it is sung during the pre-game National Anthem (ie. "Whose broad stripes and bright STARS!!!"). Really inspiring stuff. However, when the Stars travelled to play in San Jose, the Sharks' supporters responded with a loud chorus of boos each time the S-word was mentioned in the American national anthem. Even coming from the Greater San Francisco Bay area, an act that could so easily be misconstrued as anti-Americanism is remarkable.

With the series ending in six games, a deciding contest in San Jose will not occur. As a result, unless the good people of Detroit continue the new tradition, it is unlikely that Americans will be publicly booing their own national anthem en masse again anytime soon. In a post-9/11 era, when the wearing of American-flag lapel pins is a vital consideration when selecting the next president, this incident highlights the farcical and superfluous nature of pre-game national anthems.

Once a meaningful tribute, the singing of national anthems before each and every sporting event has lost its purpose. According to a poll on its website today, 69% of Globe and Mail readers disagree, but let's see if we can't change some minds. This pre-game tradition started in baseball following World War Two, to honour returning and fallen soldiers and was quickly adopted by the other major North American sports. And hockey.

At a time when the memories of six years of total war were still fresh, such a tribute was entirely appropriate. However, with the sixty-third anniversary of VE Day on Thursday, is such an act of remembrance still relevant before each and every sporting event? Of course, both Canada and the United States have fought, and are currently fighting, other wars since 1945. But how many sports fans are actually thinking about that fact when singing their national anthem before the opening pitch or face-off of a big game? It would likely be argued that people should be thinking of those who have recently lost their lives or those away from their families in Afghanistan or Iraq, but this seems unlikely on a Saturday night when the average fan is busy downing their second or third $12 beer.

This is demonstrated every time a stadium announcer asks fans to rise for the anthems, reminding them to "remove your hats and join us with respect" as they are sung. If pre-game anthems actually meant what they are supposed to mean, such a reminder would not be necessary. Modern day sports events use anthems as vehicles for excitement, not remembrance. The two emotions are mutually exclusive and the effect is that the intended meaning of national anthems is lost. 

Furthermore, paying tribute to soldiers was especially important at sporting events after World War Two, as many professional players had enlisted to fight in the war. But the wealth of modern athletes and the professional nature of today's military removes this connection between the two. Apart from Pat Tillman, no present-day sportsman has walked away from a multi-million dollar contract to risk their life in service to their country, making the singing of anthems before sporting events an even more outmoded ritual.

This is especially true given the international nature of modern sports. Compared to the 1940s and 1950s, when virtually all players were relatively local to the team they played for, today's athletes come from around the world to complete in the lucrative leagues of North America. The average NHL team has just over half of its players from Canada and one-fifth from the United States, meaning that an American franchise typically ices a team where 80% of the players have no allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, while four of the six Canadian teams are captained by Europeans. Exactly who is represented by the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner at a game between Dallas and San Jose, two teams that didn't even exist when I was born, let alone in 1945? Playing national anthems before international games, such as the ongoing Men's World Hockey Championship, where players wear the name of their countries on their shirts, makes sense, but not before a game between two franchises of international free-agent mercenaries.

It would be much easier to defend the playing of national anthems before sporting events as an important North American tradition if the sporting world wasn't virtually the only segment of society taking part. I can spend a night at the opera or theatre without singing O Canada before the curtain rises. Churchgoers forgo the anthems and head straight for the hymns, making no apologies for their allegiance laying elsewhere. In fact, it is difficult to think of any other group, organization or activity that unfailingly begins with the national anthem.

Even within the sporting world itself, anthems are not ubiquitous. Tiger Woods manages to hit a ball without first demonstrating his loyalty to Old Glory, as does Andy Roddick (although he usually reminds us of his nationality in other ways). Bowling, figure skating and even the poker that inexplicably appears on sports channels these days all somehow avoid this ritual without criticism. Yet questioning the place of national anthems before major team sports (and hockey) borders on treason.

The effect of all this is that national anthems at sporting events no longer mean what they should. They retain their role as rallying calls, but the focal point shifts from war veterans and countries to sports franchises. As a result, our national anthems, within the context of sports venues, are no longer national anthems but team songs. Take the recent series between the Montreal Canadiens and Pittsburgh Penguins, for example. Before each game at the Bell Centre, the home fans cheered boisterously during the American national anthem and sang along loudly with O Canada. But this was not patriotism, only gamesmanship; we now cheer our anthem to support our team and disrespect the other's to show our contempt, not for their country, but their players. Similar events occurred when Edmonton played San Jose in the 2006 play-offs.

The logic behind this treatment of anthems is nonsensical at best, yet it is the by-product of the continuation of a tradition that has lost its meaning. It becomes particularly problematic when both teams share the same anthem, as in the Dallas-San Jose series, putting fans in a position where they, in effect, boo themselves.

However, it becomes more than just problematic when factors such as politics become involved, as they almost certainly will when national rituals are concerned. Montreal fans famously booed the Star-Spangled Banner in 2003 to protest the US invasion of Iraq. The Montreal fans were roundly condemned in the US and Canadian press and the president of the Canadiens apologized for their actions. Yet, if anthems are intended to represent their nations, why should they not be vulnerable to criticism when those nations act irresponsibly? Why should the setting of a hockey arena preclude free speech? Showing disrespect for purposes of sport is unacceptable, but freedom to political activism is an essential element of any democracy. Fortunately, history has validated the actions of Montrealers that night.

If rivalry is an inappropriate source of disrespect and political dissent is incredibly controversial, the combination of the two can only be disastrous, such as in the 2002 NHL play-offs when the Toronto Maple Leafs faced the New York Islanders in the first round. Before each game on Long Island, the Canadian national anthem was booed mercilessly to demonstrate the fans' contempt for the visiting team. Specifically targeted was Leafs forward Darcy Tucker, who had ended New York captain Mike Peca's season with a borderline hit in Toronto. Never mind that the beloved Peca is a native of Toronto, O Canada was booed because it represented the Maple Leafs.

Unfortunately, the Leafs' "team song" is also Canada's national anthem and it also represented the four Canadian soldiers who died in Afghanistan that same week, killed when an American pilot dropped a laser-guided bomb on them despite being ordered to disengage. While it's unlikely the New York fans knowingly booed with this in mind, the North American insistence on playing national anthems before games nonetheless created the conditions for such a tragic combination of sports and politics.

There are two obvious solutions to this ongoing issue. First, fans could simply stop booing national anthems. However, since anthems are only treated as anthems some of the time and as partisan songs the rest of the time, this is unlikely to happen. Of all the above examples, only the Iraq-motivated Montreal case involved the booing of a national anthem, while the rest were directed towards the other teams. Anthems, through their overuse, run the risk of losing their powerful meanings altogether, which would only accelerate the lack of respect they receive.

As a result, the second option must be adopted and anthems must cease to be played before sporting events, with the exception of international contests. Such an act would not be disrespectful to our countries or our war veterans, since the tradition long ago lost any significant connection to either. Ending national anthems would act to preserve the meaning of both remembrance and the anthems themselves, allowing us to celebrate both in more tangible and respectful manner. Continuing to play anthems before games creates conflicting interests and unwinnable situations that benefit nobody.

"If it's ain't broke, don't fix it," as the saying goes. This tradition needs to be fixed.