In December 22, 2010, the hockey clubs AIK and Djurgården played against each other in front of an audience of more than 11 000 people in Ericsson Globe Arena, Stockholm. Although it was one of the biggest games of the year, afterwards no one was talking about the actual game on the ice. The reason; several times during the game, hooligans from both sides started big quarrels and the hockey dome felt more like a war scene than a place for a hockey game. From a branding point of view, and along with similar incidents from the past, the night in December did not create a good situation for AIK and their image.  Therefore, in this essay I want to investigate how AIK communicated through the crisis. I also want to evaluate whether their communication was good or bad from the perspective of different crisis communication theories.The essay?s research questions are:How did media describe the crisis and AIK´s part in it?What effect did AIK´s previous history of similar problem have on the ongoing crisis?How did AIK communicate through the crisis?How was AIK´s image affected by the crisis?What did AIK do well/what could AIK have done better?To be able to answer these questions, several news articles from the sports paper ?Hockeyexpressen? has been analyzed as well as a text from AIK itself.

This paper examines how the Swedish nationalistic political party Sverigedemokraterna communicates regarding the crisis they experienced when the Swedish newspaper Expressen published a few video clips of three, in that time, highly important party members that got in an argument after a late night of drinking. Two of the party members were at the time of the publication the members of the Swedish parliament and all of them had important senior positions in the party. In the argument one of the party members used abusive, offensive, sexist and racist language while all acted threatening and even armed themselves with iron bars from a nearby construction site.The aim of this paper is to examine how the party Sverigedemokraterna conducts their crisis communication, if they apologies and the fashion of the apology. A press conference with the party leader and the most active user of abusive language and also an interview with the second member of parliament who is involved in the argument are studied. The rhetorical arena is used to describe and pinpoint the most important stakeholders in the crisis.