An Olympic-Sized Property Claim

In the 2026 Olympic gold medal men’s ice hockey game, American player Jack Hughes scored the overtime game-winning goal, clinching the gold medal for Team USA. His goal was reminiscent of when Sidney Crosby, captain of Team Canada, scored the “golden goal” in overtime against Team USA in 2010. However, these stories diverge beyond just the country each represented because the respective national heroes disagree about who should own the infamous pucks for each of those goals. Crosby said that he never even thought about owning the puck and was simply happy to have scored the goal. He was delighted that the puck would rest in the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. Hughes, on the other hand, believes that he should receive the puck because he is the one who scored the goal.

In general, it is the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) that owns the pucks. After Hughes scored the game-winning goal, it was secured by IIHF staff, and the organization then decided to donate it to the Hockey Hall of Fame. While the IIHF has made it clear that it was never Jack’s puck to own in the first place and that it will rest in the Hockey Hall of Fame, this essay will explore whether Hughes has any rightful property claim over his game-winning puck through the common law rule of accession.

To discuss this potential claim, it is helpful to look at its application in Wetherbee v. Green. In this case, a craftsman made barrel hoops out of the harvested timber from the property of the landowners under the belief he was granted appropriate authority to do so. Unbeknownst to the barrel maker, he did not have consent to take the timber. Despite the wrongful possession of the timber, the court invoked the common law improver rule stating that generally one would have a right to follow the property and recover possession, but “when the wrong had been involuntary, the owner of the original materials is precluded…from following and reclaiming the property after it has undergone a transformation which converts it into an article substantially different.” The court goes on to describe that there has been a sufficient transformation when “the defendant’s labor…will appear to have given the [thing] nearly all its value.” Because the barrel maker acquired the timber under the good faith belief that he was allowed to and substantially increased its value to a degree where it underwent a sufficient transformation, the tenants in common of the real property were precluded from their right to recover.

As applied to modern-day sports, do Hughes and Crosby have potential claims to the hockey pucks they scored Olympic gold medal winning goals with? Following Wetherbee, the rule of accession dictates that an improver can keep the property when there has been good faith appropriation and a destruction of substantial identity, in which one’s labor gives the property nearly all its value. While the pucks are on the ice, they still belong to the IIHF, yet the hockey players arguably appropriate them in good faith by using them to play the sport. Like the barrel maker, both Crosby and Hughes increased the value of the hockey pucks by scoring the now infamous goals. The cost of a puck will increase when used in the Olympics, but not to the same astronomical degree after it is a game-winning goal. In fact, Hughes’s game-winning puck is potentially worth up to $1 million. Hughes rightfully believed, according to his statements, that he should have a claim over the puck; the problem is that he never had the puck in his possession after scoring the goal. Had Hughes taken the puck after he scored and kept it, there would be strong arguments that the IIHF would be precluded from claiming title. Unfortunately for Hughes, because he did not appropriate it, he cannot claim property rights under accession.

The lesson for athletes who achieve remarkable feats is simple: the game-winning puck needs to end up in their hands if they want a chance at keeping it according to property law. However, is this ruling contrary to encouraging excellence in sport or does it merely demonstrate that athletic brilliance in the Olympics should be celebrated by the entire world, not just one man? In other leagues, namely the National Hockey League (NHL), players get to keep the pucks after reaching personal records. As an NHL player, it is reasonable that Hughes believed this puck could be added to other personal memorabilia he has collected throughout his hockey career. This aligns with a Lockean labor-desert theory which postulates that individuals should be entitled to property as a reward for their labor and effort. But the Olympics is different. It is not solely about the monetary value attached to a hockey puck. Instead, it is a representation of one’s nation and all of those along the way who supported the athletes. As such, Crosby’s perspective that he was happy to be the one to score the goal for his country and wants it to rest where it can be enjoyed by everyone is overall more sympathetic.

Emily Ward is a law student at the American University Washington College of Law.

Image: daveynin from United States, Sidney Crosby “golden goal” exhibit at the Hockey Hall of Fame (53312332563).