The AIH Ranking is a custom point-based system designed for Asian Ice Hockey to evaluate the performance of men’s national teams across a wide spectrum of competitions. It includes results from major tournaments like the Olympics and World Championship, as well as regional events, invitational cups, and even friendly games.
Each event contributes to a team’s overall score based on its significance and final standing, providing a dynamic and evolving picture of competitive strength in Asian hockey.
Official AIH Ranking 2025: Asian Men’s National Ice Hockey Teams
Newly created AIH Ranking, released in August 2025, features 31 men’s national teams from across Asia that have shown verifiable competitive activity in recent years – whether through official tournaments, development events, or international friendlies. If a team stepped onto the ice wearing its national jersey, it counts.
Unsurprisingly, Kazakhstan remains the undisputed king of the Asian hill – joined at the top by the region’s traditional powerhouses: Japan, South Korea, and China. This “Big Four” has long set the standard in Asian ice hockey, and their lead in the AIH Ranking reflects that dominance.
Trailing at a respectful distance is the next tier of challengers – led by the United Arab Emirates, Chinese Taipei, and Thailand – nations that may not yet have the firepower of the giants, but have carved out their place through consistent participation and steady results. Rounding out the competitive top ten are Israel, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan – all showing that the second wave of Asian hockey is alive and kicking.
At the bottom of the table sits Qatar – with zero points. After an eight-year absence, the country returned to the ice at the Desert Cup in Doha. However, since they competed under the name “Qatar Oryx” rather than as a full-fledged national team, their participation didn’t qualify for AIH Ranking points.
Outside the ranking are teams like Azerbaijan, which is reportedly assembling a formal national squad, and Vietnam, rumored to be joining the next edition of the SEA Games. Other countries – namely Cyprus, Nepal, and Tajikistan – show minimal hockey activity but have yet to field a recognized national team.
| 2025 AIH RANKING | ||
|---|---|---|
| Rank | Team | Points |
| 1 |  Kazakhstan | 16,498 |
| 2 |  Japan | 9,933 |
| 3 |  South Korea | 9,209 |
| 4 |  China | 7,683 |
| 5 |  United Arab Emirates | 4,523 |
| 6 |  Chinese Taipei | 4,258 |
| 7 |  Thailand | 4,110 |
| 8 |  Israel | 3,899 |
| 9 |  Georgia | 3,798 |
| 10 |  Kyrgyzstan | 3,645 |
| 11 |  Turkey | 3,515 |
| 12 |  Turkmenistan | 3,451 |
| 13 |  Hong Kong, China | 3,304 |
| 14 |  Kuwait | 3,143 |
| 15 |  Singapore | 2,799 |
| 16 |  Iran | 2,368 |
| 17 |  Malaysia | 2,024 |
| 18 |  Philippines | 2,022 |
| 19 |  Mongolia | 1,890 |
| 20 |  Indonesia | 1,760 |
| 21 |  North Korea | 1,744 |
| 22 |  Lebanon | 958 |
| 23 |  Armenia | 787 |
| 24 |  Uzbekistan | 629 |
| 25 |  Oman | 540 |
| 26 |  Bahrain | 334 |
| 27 |  Macau, China | 312 |
| 28 |  India | 200 |
| 29 |  Pakistan | 83 |
| 30 |  Saudi Arabia | 71 |
| 31 |  Qatar | 0 |
AIH Ranking Methodology: Calculation Method and Core Principles
AIH Ranking aspires to be a consistent and transparent benchmark for measuring the progress of Asian national ice hockey teams – one that values participation, long-term development, and regional diversity just as much as top-level success. Its aim is not to mimic the IIHF World Ranking, but to offer a more realistic and inclusive view of team quality within Asian hockey – including those nations that lack regular international competition.
Core Principles of the AIH Ranking
- ⭐Inclusivity – All Asian national teams are considered, regardless of IIHF membership or participation in official tournaments. Even smaller or emerging hockey nations deserve recognition.
- ⭐Recognition for Participation – Symbolic points are awarded for simply taking part in low-tier or amateur tournaments. Showing up matters, especially for developing nations.
- ⭐Comprehensive Match Coverage – Both official and friendly games are counted, as long as they meet basic standards of national representation.
- ⭐Weighted Tournament Structure – Events are scored differently based on prestige, difficulty, number of teams, and competitive context.
- ⭐Support for Emerging Programs – The system encourages hockey development across the continent by acknowledging the efforts of countries with limited resources or lower match volumes.
- ⭐Long-Term Performance Tracking – The ranking spans a six-year period to reflect sustained performance and reward consistency, not just short-term peaks or isolated results.
- ⭐Time Decay Mechanism – Older results gradually lose weight over time, ensuring the ranking remains dynamic while still valuing historical context.
- ⭐Transparency and Reproducibility – All scores are based on clearly defined formulas. Anyone can verify the data – no hidden coefficients or manual adjustments.
- ⭐Interoperability and Consistency – Results across tournaments and years are scaled to keep the ranking balanced, comparable, and logically structured.
- ⭐Annual Updates with Clear Documentation – The ranking is updated every August and published on AsianIceHockey.com, alongside detailed methodology and data sources.
1 Sources of Ranking Points
Rankings are calculated based on results from the following events:
- Major tournaments – Olympics, World Championships, Asia Championship, Asian Winter Games
- Minor tournaments – various preparation, development, or regional events
- Friendly matches
The fundamental requirement is that the team must compete under the banner of a full national team. Cases where national players compete under alternative identities – such as Azerbaijani players representing Baku Flames, Saudi players playing as Jeddah Eagles, or Armenian players appearing as Armenia HC – do not count toward the ranking.
2 Time-Based Weighting of Results – 6-Year Model
Unlike the official IIHF Ranking, which only considers results from the past four years, our model uses a longer 6-year period. The aim of this approach is to capture the consistency of team performances over a longer time horizon and to reduce volatility in rankings for less active countries that do not participate in every tournament cycle.
Each point earned is assigned a weight based on its age (calculated in days since the game was played). The weighting coefficient gradually decreases as follows:
| Time-Based Weighting of Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| Points earned within the past year | → | weighted at 100% |
| Points from 1 to 2 years ago | → | weighted at 83.33% |
| Points from 2 to 3 years ago | → | weighted at 66.67% |
| Points from 3 to 4 years ago | → | weighted at 49,99% |
| Points from 4 to 5 years ago | → | weighted at 33.33% |
| Points from 5 to 6 years ago | → | weighted at 16.67% |
| Points older than 6 years | → | excluded (0% weight) |
The gradual devaluation of results ensures that recent form is prioritized, while still preserving the significance of historically important performances – particularly for teams with limited competitive activity.
The chosen model is particularly well-suited for comparing Asian national ice hockey teams, where the frequency of participation in official tournaments varies. This approach helps mitigate the impact of occasional absences, such as a team missing a tournament or facing a limited competitive calendar in a given season.
3 Major Tournaments
The highest point values are awarded for participation and placement in major tournaments, following these principles:
- Fixed, predefined point values are assigned for final placements at top-level events.
- The strength of each tournament is factored in: the Olympic Games and the World Cup receive the highest weighting, followed by the World Championships and Asia’s premier competitions (Asia Championship and Asian Winter Games).
- The overall ranking for the World Championships includes all divisions (and qualifiers, if applicable).
- The Olympic Games ranking includes both the main tournament and all qualifying rounds.
- For the Asia Championship and Asian Winter Games, points are recalculated each time based on the IIHF World Ranking of the participating teams from the previous year. This approach reflects the actual strength of the field and the current competitive level of the event.
| POINTS ALLOCATION FOR MAJOR TOURNAMENTS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Olympic Games | World Cup | World Championship | Asian Winter Games | Asia Championship |
| 1 | 2080 | 2080 | 1600 | 1240 | 1240 |
| 2 | 2028 | 2028 | 1560 | 1100 | 1100 |
| 3 | 1976 | 1976 | 1520 | 1060 | 1060 |
| 4 | 1950 | 1950 | 1500 | 1020 | 1020 |
| 5 | 1898 | 1898 | 1460 | 740 | – |
| 6 | 1872 | 1872 | 1440 | 680 | – |
| 7 | 1846 | 1846 | 1420 | 640 | – |
| 8 | 1820 | 1820 | 1400 | 620 | – |
| 9 | 1768 | – | 1360 | 560 | – |
| 10 | 1742 | – | 1340 | 520 | – |
| 11 | 1716 | – | 1320 | 500 | – |
| 12 | 1690 | – | 1300 | 200 | – |
| 13 | 1664 | – | 1280 | 180 | – |
| 14 | 1638 | – | 1260 | 160 | – |
| 15 | 1612 | – | 1240 | – | – |
| 16 | 1586 | – | 1220 | – | – |
| 17 | 1560 | – | 1200 | – | – |
| 18 | 1534 | – | 1180 | – | – |
| 19 | 1508 | – | 1160 | – | – |
| 20 | 1482 | – | 1140 | – | – |
| 21 | 1456 | – | 1120 | – | – |
| 22 | 1430 | – | 1100 | – | – |
| 23 | 1404 | – | 1080 | – | – |
| 24 | 1378 | – | 1060 | – | – |
| 25 | 1352 | – | 1040 | – | – |
| 26 | 1326 | – | 1020 | – | – |
| 27 | 1300 | – | 1000 | – | – |
| 28 | 1274 | – | 980 | – | – |
| 29 | 1248 | – | 960 | – | – |
| 30 | 1222 | – | 940 | – | – |
| 31 | 1196 | – | 920 | – | – |
| 32 | 1170 | – | 900 | – | – |
| 33 | 1144 | – | 880 | – | – |
| 34 | 1118 | – | 860 | – | – |
| 35 | 1092 | – | 840 | – | – |
| 36 | 1066 | – | 820 | – | – |
| 37 | 1040 | – | 800 | – | – |
| 38 | 1014 | – | 780 | – | – |
| 39 | 988 | – | 760 | – | – |
| 40 | 962 | – | 740 | – | – |
| 41 | 936 | – | 720 | – | – |
| 42 | 910 | – | 700 | – | – |
| 43 | 884 | – | 680 | – | – |
| 44 | 858 | – | 660 | – | – |
| 45 | 832 | – | 640 | – | – |
| 46 | 806 | – | 620 | – | – |
| 47 | 780 | – | 600 | – | – |
| 48 | 754 | – | 580 | – | – |
| 49 | 728 | – | 560 | – | – |
| 50 | 702 | – | 540 | – | – |
| 51 | 676 | – | 520 | – | – |
| 52 | 650 | – | 500 | – | – |
| 53 | 624 | – | 480 | – | – |
| 54 | 598 | – | 460 | – | – |
| 55 | 572 | – | 440 | – | – |
| 56 | 546 | – | 420 | – | – |
| 57 | 520 | – | 400 | – | – |
| 58 | 494 | – | 380 | – | – |
| 59 | 468 | – | 360 | – | – |
| 60 | 442 | – | 340 | – | – |
| 61 | 416 | – | 320 | – | – |
| 62 | 390 | – | 300 | – | – |
| 63 | 364 | – | 280 | – | – |
| 64 | 338 | – | 260 | – | – |
| 65 | 312 | – | 240 | – | – |
| 66 | 286 | – | 220 | – | – |
| 67 | 260 | – | 200 | – | – |
| 68 | 234 | – | 180 | – | – |
| 69 | 208 | – | 160 | – | – |
| 70 | 182 | – | 140 | – | – |
| 71 | 156 | – | 120 | – | – |
| 72 | 130 | – | 100 | – | – |
| 73 | 104 | – | 80 | – | – |
| 74 | 78 | – | 60 | – | – |
| 75 | 52 | – | 40 | – | – |
| 76 | 26 | – | 20 | – | – |
| 77 | 0 | – | 0 | – | – |
3.1 Points for Virtual Placements – Withdrawals, Tournament Cancellations, Disqualifications or Bans
A team that was eligible to participate in a major tournament but ultimately did not compete – regardless of the reason – may still receive points, based on the rules outlined below.
Teams can be excluded from a tournament’s final ranking due to various reasons, such as:
- Withdrawal by the team
- Tournament cancellation
- Ban imposed by the organizer
- Disqualification
In such cases, the team is assigned a virtual point value in the AIH Ranking. This value typically ranges from 90% to 0% of a reference value, adjusted by the corresponding time-based weighting factor.
The reference value reflects the hypothetical number of points the team would likely have earned had it participated in the tournament and achieved a realistic final placement.
These virtual points are also subject to the standard time-based weighting model.
3.2 Justification for Virtual Points
The virtual points principle ensures that a team’s true competitive level is not severely misrepresented due to non-participation or administrative sanctions.
A good example is Georgia: following the use of ineligible players at the 2023 World Championship, IIHF penalized the team by disqualifying them from the tournament and reassigning them to a lower division. On top of that, however, Georgia was awarded zero ranking points – a decision that contrasts with the case of Russia, which continues to accumulate IIHF ranking points despite its ongoing absence. As a result, Georgia’s current IIHF ranking position does not accurately reflect its real strength on the ice.
The AIH Ranking addresses this inconsistency by awarding adjusted virtual points in such cases – based on clear, pre-defined rules – to provide a fairer and more consistent assessment across all teams.
3.3 World Championships
If a team misses the World Championships, it may still receive partial points based on its most recent placement at the event. The percentage of the awarded value depends on whether the absence is a first-time or repeated occurrence:
- 90% for the first consecutive absence
- 60% for the second consecutive absence
- 30% for the third consecutive absence
- 0% for the fourth consecutive absence and beyond
3.4 Olympic Games & Qualification
Unlike the World Championships, where virtual points are based on the team’s most recent placement, this method cannot be applied to the Olympics due to the longer interval between editions (4 years). Instead, the team’s originally assigned qualification round is identified, and the following rules are applied:
- The respective qualification round is virtually expanded to include the absent team.
- The team is awarded points based on a fictional last-place finish in that round.
- Other affected teams in the same situation may receive identical fictional placements and thus the same number of points.
- If an entire qualification round is cancelled, all teams that were supposed to participate are added back and given equal points for the fictional last-place finish.
- Point values follow the same scaling as for the World Championships:
- 90% for the first consecutive absence
- 60% for the second
- 30% for the third
- 0% for the fourth or further
3.5 Asian Major Tournaments – Asian Winter Games and Asia Championship
In the case of a team’s non-participation in major Asian events, the following rules apply:
- If the tournament uses a tiered (division-based) format, the team will be assigned the last place within the group (division) they were originally slated to compete in.
- If no division or group placement had been assigned prior to the withdrawal or cancellation of participation, the team will be awarded a virtual placement corresponding to the overall last position in the final standings.
- Points are scaled in the same way as for the World Championships and Olympic Games:
- 90% of the original value for the first consecutive missed event
- 60% for the second
- 30% for the third
- 0% for the fourth and any beyond
4 Minor Tournaments
Due to their fluctuating quality, lineup, and number of participants, minor tournaments cannot be evaluated using the same methodology as major tournaments. Instead, points for participation and performance in these events are awarded based on:
- a predefined point range (“from – to”), reflecting the overall quality of the tournament field
- the total number of participating teams
When allocating point pools for specific tournaments, consideration is given to both the current IIHF ranking of the teams involved and the generally preparatory nature of these events (e.g., lineups may not include top-tier players).
To determine the exact point value for a given placement, a basic linear interpolation formula is applied:
/
(Number of participants − 1)
Example:
If a tournament with 8 participants is assigned a point range of 700 to 300, the difference in points between each position is approximately 57.14, calculated as (700 – 300) / (8 – 1) = 57.14. The point pool for that tournament would be distributed as follows:
-
-
- 1st place → 700
- 2nd place → 643
- 3rd place → 586
- 4th place → 529
- 5th place → 471
- 6th place → 414
- 7th place → 357
- 8th place → 300
-
| POINTS ALLOCATION FOR MINOR TOURNAMENTS | |
|---|---|
| Event | Point Range |
| Kazakhstan Hockey Open | 1300-1180 |
| Channel One Cup | 1300-1180 |
| RK President Cup | 1300-1180 |
| Euro Ice Hockey Challenge | 1160-1110 |
| Legacy Cup | 1000-960 |
| SEA Games | 700-300 |
| Turkmenistan President’s Cup | 500-100 |
| IIHF Asia Cup | 340-40 |
| Latam Cup Div 1 | 300-200 |
| ADIHIC Cup | 300-20 |
| Latam Cup Div 2 | 200-100 |
| Dream Nations Cup Div 1 | 200-100 |
| GCC Games | 200-20 |
| Arab Cup | 200-20 |
| Open Championship | 200-20 |
| Latam Cup Div 3 | 100-20 |
| Dream Nations Cup Div 2 | 100-20 |
| Other Tournaments (Not Listed) | 200-20 |
5 Friendly Matches
Unlike the IIHF Ranking, the AIH Ranking also includes friendly games – even unofficial matchups involving national teams against national B teams, age-group national squads (U25, U20, U18, etc.), club teams, mixed selections, and others.
Points are awarded based on the following formula:
5.1 Match Result Points
We apply the standard match scoring system:
-
-
- Win in regulation: 3 points
- Win in overtime/shootout: 2 points
- Loss in overtime/shootout: 1 point
- Loss in regulation: 0 points
-
5.2 Opponent Strength Coefficient
Each team is assigned a ranking coefficient which determines the value of a win against them. This coefficient is based on the team’s placement in the IIHF World Ranking from the previous year. If a team is not included in the ranking, a default coefficient of 1.0 is applied.
For example, the following coefficients were used for evaluating friendly matches played in 2025, based on the IIHF Ranking from 2024:
| COEFFICIENT FOR FRIENDLY MATCHES | ||
|---|---|---|
| IIHF Ranking | Team | Coefficient |
| 2024 | Canada | 100 |
| 2024 | Russia | 100 |
| 2024 | Finland | 100 |
| 2024 | Czech Republic | 100 |
| 2024 | United States | 100 |
| 2024 | Switzerland | 100 |
| 2024 | Sweden | 90 |
| 2024 | Germany | 90 |
| 2024 | Slovakia | 90 |
| 2024 | Latvia | 90 |
| 2024 | Denmark | 90 |
| 2024 | Norway | 90 |
| 2024 | Austria | 80 |
| 2024 | France | 80 |
| 2024 | Kazakhstan | 80 |
| 2024 | Belarus | 80 |
| 2024 | Great Britain | 80 |
| 2024 | Slovenia | 80 |
| 2024 | Hungary | 70 |
| 2024 | Italy | 70 |
| 2024 | Poland | 70 |
| 2024 | South Korea | 70 |
| 2024 | Romania | 70 |
| 2024 | Japan | 70 |
| 2024 | Lithuania | 60 |
| 2024 | China | 60 |
| 2024 | Ukraine | 60 |
| 2024 | Estonia | 60 |
| 2024 | Netherlands | 60 |
| 2024 | Spain | 60 |
| 2024 | Serbia | 50 |
| 2024 | Croatia | 50 |
| 2024 | Israel | 50 |
| 2024 | Iceland | 50 |
| 2024 | Australia | 50 |
| 2024 | United Arab Emirates | 50 |
| 2024 | Bulgaria | 40 |
| 2024 | Turkey | 40 |
| 2024 | Belgium | 40 |
| 2024 | Chinese Taipei | 40 |
| 2024 | New Zealand | 40 |
| 2024 | Mexico | 40 |
| 2024 | Thailand | 30 |
| 2024 | Luxembourg | 30 |
| 2024 | Kyrgyzstan | 30 |
| 2024 | Turkmenistan | 30 |
| 2024 | South Africa | 30 |
| 2024 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 30 |
| 2024 | Hong Kong | 20 |
| 2024 | Georgia | 20 |
| 2024 | Singapore | 20 |
| 2024 | Kuwait | 20 |
| 2024 | Philippines | 20 |
| 2024 | Iran | 10 |
| 2024 | Malaysia | 10 |
| 2024 | North Korea | 10 |
| 2024 | Mongolia | 10 |
| 2024 | Indonesia | 10 |
Sources Used in Compiling the AIH Ranking:
• Nationteamsoficehockey.com – primary source for match data extraction
• IIHF, Wikipedia, and other official sources – tournament placements, rankings
• Eliteprospects.com – supplementary reference source
