Title: The Lilja case – a study about discourse and media representations of violence within ice hockey The purpose of this study is to examine the discourses that influenced the debate in Swedish sport media around the professional ice hockey player Jakob Liljas 10-game suspension and subsequent assault conviction by the Swedish legal system. The aim is to see how Lilja’s violence was defined and what voices were the most prominent in the debate. The study is based on a theoretical framework consisting of Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory and Agamben’s ideas of the Homo Sacer and the State of Exception. Using Laclau and Mouffe, an analytical toolbox was assembled to deconstruct the discourses present in the debate. The analysis found two dominant discourses within the debate: a sports discourse and a law discourse. The study found two nodal points that defined how the discourses treated Lilja’s violence; the nodal point “crime” within the law discourse, and the nodal point “rule violation” within the sports one. The sports discourse argued against the legal process maintained that Lilja had already received a sufficient punishment through his suspension. The law one was centred around the premise that legal action was required to properly punish Lilja. The analysis found that the sports discourse unsuccessfully tried to position the sport of ice hockey as a State of Exception where the laws of regular society should not apply. There were also similarities between the underlying masculine norms that informed how the sports discourse treated player health and Agambens Homo Sacer, how people’s life worth is reduced in order to justify certain conditions imposed on them. While a true State of Exception or Homo Sacer does not exist in this scenario, as Lilja was ultimately convicted according to the rules of the law discourse, it is interesting that ideas that align with these concepts were well represented in the medial debate.