NHL and CHL being sued over alleged exploitative contracts for teen players

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,805
18,166
Third, junior hockey in Canada has shown a remarkable ability to adapt and thrive for over 125 years. It wasn’t until the early-1970s that what we now know as the CHL entered its infancy. There was no QMJHL. The WHL was an outlaw league. The (then) Ontario Major Junior Hockey League was governed by the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA), which itself was governed by the CAHA. Hockey Canada was still an international hockey slush fund controlled by Eagleson. There was no “NHL-CHL Agreement” but there was a “NHL-CAHA Agreement,” which allowed the CAHA to subsidize grassroots hockey across Canada.

And guess what? Canadian junior hockey still gave hockey Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe, Rocket Richard and Bobby Hull, Guy Lafleur and Gilbert Perreault, Stan Mikita and Phil Esposito.
I don't think there's any particular question that whether or not the current system is overhauled that it won't be replaced by "something" and that's not particularly remarkable from my perspective. There is nothing special about the CHL from my perspective from a "top-down" perspective, and basic market principles indicate that there will be something in place from a grassroots "bottom-up" perspective, as long as there are kids in Canada that will keep playing hockey. The question is what exactly that will look like if reform is afoot.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,566
2,209
I don't think there's any particular question that whether or not the current system is overhauled that it won't be replaced by "something" and that's not particularly remarkable from my perspective. There is nothing special about the CHL from my perspective from a "top-down" perspective, and basic market principles indicate that there will be something in place from a grassroots "bottom-up" perspective, as long as there are kids in Canada that will keep playing hockey. The question is what exactly that will look like if reform is afoot.
Tony Keller from The Globe & Mail has started writing about this very topic.

His February 19th column is located here (unfortunately for some, behind a paywall). Opinion: Want to change the culture of junior hockey? Change the business model

A few quotes:

“It starts with the draft. The draft means that CHL employees – who are children when drafted – lose their autonomy, agency and bargaining power. Unless they want to walk away from major-junior, they have to play for the team that drafted them. Their employer sells hundreds of thousands of tickets owing to their labour, and earns revenues from television and product sales based on their labour, yet they have no ability to bargain for pay or working conditions.

And though they cannot sell their labour to a CHL team other than the one that drafted them, their employers can trade them – any time. Imagine if the Tim Hortons in Calgary could sell its teenage employees to the McDonald’s in Winnipeg, and order them to report to the new job site the next morning.

Or imagine if an aspiring student from Vancouver was told that she has been drafted by the University of Lethbridge – and as a result, her application to McGill would be automatically rejected.


The draft is what underpins major-junior hockey’s often abusive culture. End the draft, and at a stroke of a pen, players and parents will suddenly regain autonomy and bargaining power.

To change the culture, change the business model. To change the business model, change the rules.”
 

Corso

Registered User
Aug 13, 2018
375
344
Tony Keller from The Globe & Mail has started writing about this very topic.

His February 19th column is located here (unfortunately for some, behind a paywall). Opinion: Want to change the culture of junior hockey? Change the business model



The draft is what underpins major-junior hockey’s often abusive culture. End the draft, and at a stroke of a pen, players and parents will suddenly regain autonomy and bargaining power.

To change the culture, change the business model. To change the business model, change the rules.”
Fully agree....no junior hockey league that deals with minor age players should be conducting drafts forcing players to play in a locality far from home and a support network.

Of course, this would also have implications for other junior leagues such as the USHL and NAHL that also conduct drafts.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,566
2,209
Fully agree....no junior hockey league that deals with minor age players should be conducting drafts forcing players to play in a locality far from home and a support network.

Of course, this would also have implications for other junior leagues such as the USHL and NAHL that also conduct drafts.
Drafts (or “priority selections” as the CHL calls them) are not inherently odious. They can be collectively bargained, though one would need to really push the limits of imagination to conjure circumstances that would lead any union to willingly expose minor children to such a process.

Historically, the CHL drafts were created when the junior sponsorship era ended.

During the sponsorship era, NHL teams scouted youth teams and then tried to sign players to a C-card. If the player signed (say, like 14 year-old Bobby Orr did with the Boston Bruins in 1962), his deal was with the NHL team, not a junior club, and the NHL club could assign the player to one of its sponsored junior teams. In Orr’s case, that was Oshawa.

But Orr didn’t have to sign with Boston. He had the unfettered right to sign a C-card with ANY NHL team. Further, Orr didn’t have to play for Oshawa. His parents negotiated hard with the Bruins — they ultimately rejected having their son report to Niagara Falls (another of the Bruins sponsored junior teams) and selected Oshawa with strict conditions, such as Bobby got to continue living in Parry Sound but commute for games, which in his first season would be played in Toronto instead of Oshawa. They even negotiated the Bruins agreement to financially subsidize the Parry Sound Minor Hockey Association for a few years, so more families could afford to have their kids play.

Conversely, the Bruins did not have to agree to those terms, nor did they have to agree to a) buy Bobby’s dad a car and b) pay to have the Orrs’ home stuccoed. But they did agree, and in exchange they “owned” the exclusive playing rights to a player who would change the game and eventually bring two Stanley Cups to Beantown (and win two Smythes for good measure).

When the junior sponsorship system ended, the junior leagues “copied” the newly-expanded NHL entry draft and created their own drafts. In the WHL, the early drafts were of Peewees, before someone finally realized that drafting kids before they’d finished grade 7 was a bit rich, so they shifted to a bantam draft of 9th graders. Quebec and Ontario cull the grade 10s.

Also, along with these drafts, the junior hockey “Standard Player Agreement” was created, which was etched in stone for everyone. No more cars for dad. No more stuccoed houses for the family. No more ensuring kids didn’t have to move hundreds of miles away with no choice. More importantly, no more options. Live in Victoria, B.C., and get drafted by the WHL club in Brandon, Manitoba? Shut up and be happy — getting conscripted is an honour. The three CHL leagues have draft territories that run North-South to carve up North America, which means a kid in Massachusetts interested in playing CHL junior hockey is bound to the Quebec-Maritimes League team that lays claim to him.

In my view, this was not ever a legitimate player development model. No, it was and remains (in my largely minority view) a hideous business model intended to turn minor children into chattel, ostensibly in the name of “competitive balance” but in truth to make player costs as uniformly low as possible.

It’s indefensible and needs to go.
 

Ernie

Registered User
Aug 3, 2004
12,859
2,366
Drafts (or “priority selections” as the CHL calls them) are not inherently odious. They can be collectively bargained, though one would need to really push the limits of imagination to conjure circumstances that would lead any union to willingly expose minor children to such a process.

Historically, the CHL drafts were created when the junior sponsorship era ended.

During the sponsorship era, NHL teams scouted youth teams and then tried to sign players to a C-card. If the player signed (say, like 14 year-old Bobby Orr did with the Boston Bruins in 1962), his deal was with the NHL team, not a junior club, and the NHL club could assign the player to one of its sponsored junior teams. In Orr’s case, that was Oshawa.

But Orr didn’t have to sign with Boston. He had the unfettered right to sign a C-card with ANY NHL team. Further, Orr didn’t have to play for Oshawa. His parents negotiated hard with the Bruins — they ultimately rejected having their son report to Niagara Falls (another of the Bruins sponsored junior teams) and selected Oshawa with strict conditions, such as Bobby got to continue living in Parry Sound but commute for games, which in his first season would be played in Toronto instead of Oshawa. They even negotiated the Bruins agreement to financially subsidize the Parry Sound Minor Hockey Association for a few years, so more families could afford to have their kids play.

Conversely, the Bruins did not have to agree to those terms, nor did they have to agree to a) buy Bobby’s dad a car and b) pay to have the Orrs’ home stuccoed. But they did agree, and in exchange they “owned” the exclusive playing rights to a player who would change the game and eventually bring two Stanley Cups to Beantown (and win two Smythes for good measure).

When the junior sponsorship system ended, the junior leagues “copied” the newly-expanded NHL entry draft and created their own drafts. In the WHL, the early drafts were of Peewees, before someone finally realized that drafting kids before they’d finished grade 7 was a bit rich, so they shifted to a bantam draft of 9th graders. Quebec and Ontario cull the grade 10s.

Also, along with these drafts, the junior hockey “Standard Player Agreement” was created, which was etched in stone for everyone. No more cars for dad. No more stuccoed houses for the family. No more ensuring kids didn’t have to move hundreds of miles away with no choice. More importantly, no more options. Live in Victoria, B.C., and get drafted by the WHL club in Brandon, Manitoba? Shut up and be happy — getting conscripted is an honour. The three CHL leagues have draft territories that run North-South to carve up North America, which means a kid in Massachusetts interested in playing CHL junior hockey is bound to the Quebec-Maritimes League team that lays claim to him.

In my view, this was not ever a legitimate player development model. No, it was and remains (in my largely minority view) a hideous business model intended to turn minor children into chattel, ostensibly in the name of “competitive balance” but in truth to make player costs as uniformly low as possible.

It’s indefensible and needs to go.

On the other hand, allowing the richest teams in the league to bribe parents in order to secure the rights to 14 year olds also doesn't seem like the best system.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,805
18,166
On the other hand, allowing the richest teams in the league to bribe parents in order to secure the rights to 14 year olds also doesn't seem like the best system.
I think letting kids pick their teams makes a lot more sense when discussing junior players. The USHL isn't ideal but does have a "tender" system where teams can give up their first two picks to sign a max of two kids per year. That's how Celebrini, Fantilli, Power all ended up on the Steel and a big reason they opted for that route to begin with. They aren't the only one to do that.




So there's still a draft, but a high-end kid can essentially opt out of it and pick their spot. Presumably if you're not tendered, you shouldn't mind being in the Draft as you're not that highly coveted and grateful to get an opportunity wherever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadgerBruce

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,566
2,209
On the other hand, allowing the richest teams in the league to bribe parents in order to secure the rights to 14 year olds also doesn't seem like the best system.
True — within a 2021 context.

But in 1962, signing a C-card with an NHL club bound the player to that club more or less for an entire career (remember, no CBA yet, no free agency, no salary arbitration, 1-year NHL contracts were the norm, and the reserve clause was a decade away from being struck down in the US courts). The only time a player had any leverage at all was when presented with a C-card.

Different times.
 

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,444
4,463
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
The CHL model is kind of scary when you think about it.

So I have a 13 year old hockey player, soon to be 14. He would actually be eligible to be drafted by a WHL team next year. The odds of him being drafted are still really small, but it's getting to be something he talks about.

But then as a parent - he could ge5t drafted by, I dunno, Prince Albert. Or maybe even worse Everett or Tri-City in the US. All of which would be pretty far from home. And you're just trusting him to some billet family to look after him.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,805
18,166
The CHL model is kind of scary when you think about it.

So I have a 13 year old hockey player, soon to be 14. He would actually be eligible to be drafted by a WHL team next year. The odds of him being drafted are still really small, but it's getting to be something he talks about.

But then as a parent - he could ge5t drafted by, I dunno, Prince Albert. Or maybe even worse Everett or Tri-City in the US. All of which would be pretty far from home. And you're just trusting him to some billet family to look after him.
Yup, there's a reason Western Canadians have traditionally been the ones more likely to opt for the BCHL/AJHL followed by NCAA, compared to their Ontario and East Coast Junior A equivalents. It's a big ask for 16/17 year olds to just pack up their bags and head somewhere that is a very long way from home and essentially leave their friends/family behind to chase the hockey dream. In addition to the travel factor, there's consideration that not all CHL programs are identical and have the same resources/coaching available, but if you go that route, you're subject to the whims of wherever you end up. Some sort of tender system feels inevitable, at least give higher end kids the right to opt to where they want to commit 3-4 years of their life. If a junior team "can't survive" under that sort of system, well maybe they just weren't meant to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom ServoMST3K

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,444
4,463
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Yup, there's a reason Western Canadians have traditionally been the ones more likely to opt for the BCHL/AJHL followed by NCAA, compared to their Ontario and East Coast Junior A equivalents. It's a big ask for 16/17 year olds to just pack up their bags and head somewhere that is a very long way from home and essentially leave their friends/family behind to chase the hockey dream. In addition to the travel factor, there's consideration that not all CHL programs are identical and have the same resources/coaching available, but if you go that route, you're subject to the whims of wherever you end up. Some sort of tender system feels inevitable, at least give higher end kids the right to opt to where they want to commit 3-4 years of their life. If a junior team "can't survive" under that sort of system, well maybe they just weren't meant to survive.

A lot of those teams though are truly important parts of their communities, in particular in Saskatchewan. The PA Raiders, Moose Jaw Warriors, Swift Current Broncos are beloved in those towns - but would have a hard time trying to attract kids who are increasingly all coming from the cities (and from expensive hockey academies to boot).

Really - I have no idea what the best solution is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,719
Initial thoughts:

* The claim that the NHL "exert substantial influence and control over Major Junior Defendants" is going to have to be backed up with overwhelming evidence; the mere fact that the NHL gives money to the CHL doesn't establish "substantial influence and control" especially since the CHL can make whatever decisions it wants independent of the NHL, without the approval of the NHL. I don't think the plaintiffs clear that hurdle. I don't think they get anywhere close to it.
* The rest of the arguments about players in the AHL and ECHL are irrelevant; those players are (A) signed to NHL contracts that specify minimum salaries, or (B) signed to contracts by teams of those leagues. The fact that CHL players get underpaid relative to AHL or ECHL players doesn't establish proof that the NHL exerts undue influence any more than you getting underpaid relative to the same type of business across the street means that business's owner is exerting undue influence on your employer.
* Courts have long held that pro sports leagues can decide who can enter the league, and under what requirements; that also applies to arrangements between a major pro sports league and any minor leagues affiliated with the major pro league in the same sport. Thus, whatever the NHL-AHL-ECHL collectively decide has no relevance for any other pro hockey league or any rights players in those league should enjoy since they are not players under contract in the NHL-AHL-ECHL.
* Nothing else in this lawsuit supports a position that the NHL engages in any of the other alleged behaviors; it's pure conjecture and hyperbole.
* Other points not detailed, but are relevant: NHLPA's requirement(s) to be a member; NHLPA's requirement that players signed to NHL contracts pay NHLPA dues whether a member of the NHLPA or not; no obligation of the NHL to pay players not signed to NHL contracts any salary much less a salary with any stated minimum; minimum age to be eligible to play in the NHL vs. alleged members of the class who are not eligible to sign an NHL contract; no obligation of the NHL or its member teams to sign any CHL player regardless of the player's interest; lack of agreement between NHL and CHL could still be enforced by decisions of the AHL and ECHL to control who can play in its league in a substantially similar fashion, which would follow past court precedents and be upheld.
* Lots of other stuff if I want to waste 5 solid days on this.

Result: the NHL is going to get dismissed as a defendant.

That's then going to raise the question of jurisdiction. Bringing a lawsuit against a Canada-based entity in the U.S. is going to be very skeptically looked at, even if there's a few U.S-based teams in the CHL. I suspect the case will get thrown out on that basis, meaning it will have to get filed in Canada - at which point, any U.S. legal arguments are irrelevant.

It's an attention-getting filing that's going to tug at the heartstrings of fans and rile up their emotions and gain their sympathy, but at the end of the day this lawsuit is going to go nowhere in the U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,444
4,463
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
Initial thoughts:

* The claim that the NHL "exert substantial influence and control over Major Junior Defendants" is going to have to be backed up with overwhelming evidence; the mere fact that the NHL gives money to the CHL doesn't establish "substantial influence and control" especially since the CHL can make whatever decisions it wants independent of the NHL, without the approval of the NHL. I don't think the plaintiffs clear that hurdle. I don't think they get anywhere close to it.
* The rest of the arguments about players in the AHL and ECHL are irrelevant; those players are (A) signed to NHL contracts that specify minimum salaries, or (B) signed to contracts by teams of those leagues. The fact that CHL players get underpaid relative to AHL or ECHL players doesn't establish proof that the NHL exerts undue influence any more than you getting underpaid relative to the same type of business across the street means that business's owner is exerting undue influence on your employer.
* Courts have long held that pro sports leagues can decide who can enter the league, and under what requirements; that also applies to arrangements between a major pro sports league and any minor leagues affiliated with the major pro league in the same sport. Thus, whatever the NHL-AHL-ECHL collectively decide has no relevance for any other pro hockey league or any rights players in those league should enjoy since they are not players under contract in the NHL-AHL-ECHL.
* Nothing else in this lawsuit supports a position that the NHL engages in any of the other alleged behaviors; it's pure conjecture and hyperbole.
* Other points not detailed, but are relevant: NHLPA's requirement(s) to be a member; NHLPA's requirement that players signed to NHL contracts pay NHLPA dues whether a member of the NHLPA or not; no obligation of the NHL to pay players not signed to NHL contracts any salary much less a salary with any stated minimum; minimum age to be eligible to play in the NHL vs. alleged members of the class who are not eligible to sign an NHL contract; no obligation of the NHL or its member teams to sign any CHL player regardless of the player's interest; lack of agreement between NHL and CHL could still be enforced by decisions of the AHL and ECHL to control who can play in its league in a substantially similar fashion, which would follow past court precedents and be upheld.
* Lots of other stuff if I want to waste 5 solid days on this.

Result: the NHL is going to get dismissed as a defendant.

That's then going to raise the question of jurisdiction. Bringing a lawsuit against a Canada-based entity in the U.S. is going to be very skeptically looked at, even if there's a few U.S-based teams in the CHL. I suspect the case will get thrown out on that basis, meaning it will have to get filed in Canada - at which point, any U.S. legal arguments are irrelevant.

It's an attention-getting filing that's going to tug at the heartstrings of fans and rile up their emotions and gain their sympathy, but at the end of the day this lawsuit is going to go nowhere in the U.S.

Just a couple thoughts here:

-you talk about "overwhelming evidence". Remember just by filing a lawsuit the parties get to go through discovery. That means the CHL and NHL will have to turns over mountains of documents detailing the conversations and emails between the two leagues. So who knows what might come up?

-I strongly suspect that having several US-based teams would give a US court jurisdiction.

-the real issue for the CHL is there is no CBA, so their entire entry draft and standard fees could be ruled illegal.

Do I know what will happen? No clue. First of all they have to get recognized as a class for the class action lawsuit. Perhaps they don't get enough people to sign up and the lawsuit is dismissed on that basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chan790

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,805
18,166
That's then going to raise the question of jurisdiction. Bringing a lawsuit against a Canada-based entity in the U.S. is going to be very skeptically looked at, even if there's a few U.S-based teams in the CHL. I suspect the case will get thrown out on that basis, meaning it will have to get filed in Canada - at which point, any U.S. legal arguments are irrelevant.

It's an attention-getting filing that's going to tug at the heartstrings of fans and rile up their emotions and gain their sympathy, but at the end of the day this lawsuit is going to go nowhere in the U.S.
Really? Would seem minimum contacts is very easily established, these are U.S. based franchises subject to the same league requirements as the Canadian ones.... not just some American players or some Americans subscribing to CHL TV packages.

I think we should also give a lot of consideration to the recent NCAA precedent,

The NCAA couches its arguments for not paying student athletes in innocuous labels. But the labels cannot disguise the reality: The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America. All of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks’ wages on the theory that “customers prefer” to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers’ salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a “love of the law.” Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses’ income in order to create a “purer” form of helping the sick. News organizations cannot join forces to curtail pay to reporters to preserve a “tradition” of public-minded journalism. Movie studios cannot collude to slash benefits to camera crews to kindle a “spirit of amateurism” in Hollywood.Price-fixing labor is price-fixing labor. And price-fixing labor is ordinarily a textbook antitrust problem because it extinguishes the free market in which individuals can otherwise obtain fair compensation for their work.
Hard to see how that doesn't hit the nail on the head for Major Junior Hockey as well.

I don't think Canadian Courts are going to differ significantly from American courts here. Canada is rather strict when it comes to non-competition laws and isn't generally going to be more anti-labor favorable than the U.S. The CHL has long been able to restrict wages based on the cozy relationship between Hockey Canada and Politicians, but hard to understate how big of a hit to Junior Hockey and Hockey Canada's reputation the World Junior scandal has had. They also aren't blind to the NCAA rulings south of the border, it's harder and harder to justify the Major Junior restrictions in that case.
 
Dec 15, 2002
29,289
8,719
Really? Would seem minimum contacts is very easily established, these are U.S. based franchises subject to the same league requirements as the Canadian ones.... not just some American players or some Americans subscribing to CHL TV packages.
The CHL is based in Canada. The fact that there are franchises based in the U.S. doesn't necessarily grant nexus.

I think we should also give a lot of consideration to the recent NCAA precedent,
What got the NCAA in trouble was it deriving revenues specifically off the efforts of student-athletes, then telling student-athletes "if you earn anything perceived to be of value, it violates your eligibility and you lose all athletic scholarship benefits granted by a member school" which encompasses more than just cash payments. That prohibition and declarative, permanent punishment could be tied to a reduction in earnings of that student-athlete in their chosen sport while the NCAA retained 100% of the revenue generated by that student-athlete. It was a "you cannot gain any benefit from your efforts as a student-athlete unless we approve, we retain all the rewards from your efforts as a student-athlete" arrangement.

That's not the argument here. The argument is the CHL doesn't pay players enough. Nothing prevents CHL players from going out and earning money via endorsements, or working summer jobs, or so on. If that activity was prohibited, then there would be a stronger argument for citing the NCAA rulings.

The closest analog here is when minor league baseball players sued MLB and MILB, alleging violations of minimum wage laws. In that case, players were given a meager salary and had to pay for their own expenses on a number of fronts [lodging during the season, travel to/from training camp, other personal expenses that were directly related to their employment] on top of mandatory requirements to do various things directly tied to their jobs. Unless I missed it (I'm not reading through 114 or so pages, I've got other things to do this week), there's no allegation that CHL players are being forced to foot those kinds of expenses out-of-pocket.


I don't think Canadian Courts are going to differ significantly from American courts here. Canada is rather strict when it comes to non-competition laws and isn't generally going to be more anti-labor favorable than the U.S.
IANAL [even though I've spent enough time - some might say way too much time - with them to learn how they look at filings], and IANACL. I don't - and won't - make a stance on the specifics of laws in Canada and their interpretations and applications in Canada.

The CHL has long been able to restrict wages based on the cozy relationship between Hockey Canada and Politicians, but hard to understate how big of a hit to Junior Hockey and Hockey Canada's reputation the World Junior scandal has had.
True, but that's really irrelevant to the legalities of the case. How the law is applied shouldn't suddenly vary because Hockey Canada's reputation has taken a hit. If a "cozy relationship" has allowed labor law to be tilted against the players in some way, that's not a problem for the courts to resolve by simply tossing out laws on feelings; that's a problem for Parliament to solve.

They also aren't blind to the NCAA rulings south of the border, it's harder and harder to justify the Major Junior restrictions in that case.
If Canadian law applies in a similar fashion. Which, if it does, OK. If it doesn't, it would make as much sense as the Supreme Court looking at some ruling in Canada and saying well, if Canada said that, we're going to use that too whether it followed U.S. law or not. Again, there's still notable differences between the arguments vs. the NCAA and its actions toward student-athletes, and what goes on wrt the CHL and its players. That's why I don't hazard a guess as to how such a case might play out in a court in Canada; I'll leave that to anyone here who's from Canada and practicing as a lawyer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser

Yukon Joe

Registered User
Aug 3, 2011
6,444
4,463
YWG -> YXY -> YEG
If Canadian law applies in a similar fashion. Which, if it does, OK. If it doesn't, it would make as much sense as the Supreme Court looking at some ruling in Canada and saying well, if Canada said that, we're going to use that too whether it followed U.S. law or not. Again, there's still notable differences between the arguments vs. the NCAA and its actions toward student-athletes, and what goes on wrt the CHL and its players. That's why I don't hazard a guess as to how such a case might play out in a court in Canada; I'll leave that to anyone here who's from Canada and practicing as a lawyer.

So, I am a lawyer. I'm licensed to practice in Canada (Alberta). I am NOT someone who practices in competition law or class-action lawsuits.

Do Canadian courts respect US decisions, and vice-versa? A little bit. If a novel issue of law comes up, and there's no binding authority in one country, the courts may well look at similar decisions in another jurisdiction. But they're still not binding - and if there are binding authorities in your own jurisdiction, then who cares what the other side of the border is doing.

One example I like to bring up about the difference in the two countries, despite having a similar origin. In the US you can refuse to answer questions under oath, citing the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination. In Canada you can not refuse to answer questions under oath - however anything you say can not be used against you (contrary to the famous US Miranda warning), citing the s. 11(c) of the Charter of Rights right against self-incrimination. One principle, two totally different interpretations.

So anyways - I don't think I can predict how such a lawsuit would result in either country.

The thing to remember about the NCAA NIL ruling, and the rules around the CHL. The NIL ruling was that the NCAA couldn't prohibit players from profiting from their Name, Image or Likeness (NIL). So a NCAA player could go and sign a freaking autograph and get paid for it. What hasn't changed though? NCAA players still aren't paid by their schools, despite the tremendous profits they bring in.

I believe there's no prohibition for CHL players to profit from their NIL. And they are paid a small stipend (unlike NCAA players). What this lawsuit says is that CHL players should be able to negotiate to get paid more.

Oh and by the way...

I don't think Canadian Courts are going to differ significantly from American courts here. Canada is rather strict when it comes to non-competition laws and isn't generally going to be more anti-labor favorable than the U.S. The CHL has long been able to restrict wages based on the cozy relationship between Hockey Canada and Politicians, but hard to understate how big of a hit to Junior Hockey and Hockey Canada's reputation the World Junior scandal has had. They also aren't blind to the NCAA rulings south of the border, it's harder and harder to justify the Major Junior restrictions in that case.

I respectfully disagree - Canada is rather weak on anti-competition law - which is why so much of our economy is dominated by a few large companies. Compare the number of banks or number of media companies compared to the US.

Canada also gives a certain informal deference to hockey - see all the Hockey Canada bullshit that's happened. So I wouldn't have full confidence that Canadian courts would strike down the CHL way of business.

Remember - the CHLPA over a decade ago tried to collectively bargain the CHL. It crashed and burned and nothing changed.
 

golfortennis1

Registered User
Mar 18, 2022
117
112
Sidebar- but the majority of CHL teams do not turn a profit of any significance. How do those franchises survive if they have to pay their players? Is the scholarship fund large enough to be redistributed as wages?

We talk pretty casually about the consequences of CHL player wages but is it not a death knell to the leagues? Would revenue sharing allow the leagues to stay afloat?

It might all seem somewhat trivial but Jr. hockey teams are such a massive part of small city Canada that it is pretty much unthinkable that their existence be threatened to this extent.

Have you ever heard of Taleb's "Skin in the Game"? One of the things he talks about is how, if someone wants to "sell" him financial services, he says, "don't tell me what you think, show me what is in your portfolio."

While this is not a direct analogy, I don't put much stock in what franchises claim is or isn't their income. I look at what people pay for the team when they are bought. And what I can see is people are paying *a lot* of money for a supposedly unprofitable enterprise. Something doesn't add up.
 

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,166
1,722
Brampton, Ont
I've always felt a hybrid of the old Junior affiliate and current model could be a solution to this issue.

1- Get rid of the draft and change to a recruiting model, young players and their families decide where they play.
2- NHL teams arrange sponsorships and affiliations with CHL teams (potentially one per league).
3- CHL players who are drafted and sign EL contracts can now be assigned to that NHL team's affiliate. If you're a CHL player and don't want to change teams, don't sign your ELC yet.
4- Jr assigned NHL players would be paid a flat rate salary by the NHL team. Ex. 50k. No bonuses, no one makes more or less. No impact to ELC term.
5- no trades

This could help the profitability of CHL teams. Create an Academy like environment where all the top prospects of an NHL team play for the same CHL
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corso

Flukeshot

Briere Activate!
Sponsor
Feb 19, 2004
5,166
1,722
Brampton, Ont
That's a non-starter. Never gonna happen. The Draft is the most pivotal factor for a "32 healthy franchises" model.
I'm referring to the CHL drafts, that way players are treated more like NCAA players where they at least get to choose where they live and what "company" they work for... for free.

Then once drafted and signed by an NHL team they sign that right/control away but are at least compensated by being paid a respectable wage. The years played/paid in the CHL would not eat into their NHL ELC
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,885
17,290
Mulberry Street
The CHL model is kind of scary when you think about it.

So I have a 13 year old hockey player, soon to be 14. He would actually be eligible to be drafted by a WHL team next year. The odds of him being drafted are still really small, but it's getting to be something he talks about.

But then as a parent - he could ge5t drafted by, I dunno, Prince Albert. Or maybe even worse Everett or Tri-City in the US. All of which would be pretty far from home. And you're just trusting him to some billet family to look after him.

The billet family system has been around for eons. These people are subject to rigorous background checks and many families have been apart of the system for years.

There's never been any sort of controversy with it anyhow. Especially in the MeToo era, we didn't hear of billet families absuing or assaulting these players.

I get as a parent it's not easy to just trust some people you've never really met with looking after your kid, but these are good people.
 

BadgerBruce

Registered User
Aug 8, 2013
1,566
2,209
The billet family system has been around for eons. These people are subject to rigorous background checks and many families have been apart of the system for years.

There's never been any sort of controversy with it anyhow. Especially in the MeToo era, we didn't hear of billet families absuing or assaulting these players.

I get as a parent it's not easy to just trust some people you've never really met with looking after your kid, but these are good people.
While I do largely agree with you, billet families are not always good people.

 
  • Like
Reactions: PGW

PlayersLtd

Registered User
Mar 6, 2019
1,257
1,531
Have you ever heard of Taleb's "Skin in the Game"? One of the things he talks about is how, if someone wants to "sell" him financial services, he says, "don't tell me what you think, show me what is in your portfolio."

While this is not a direct analogy, I don't put much stock in what franchises claim is or isn't their income. I look at what people pay for the team when they are bought. And what I can see is people are paying *a lot* of money for a supposedly unprofitable enterprise. Something doesn't add up.
Sports franchises are not the place to apply that kind of analogy because they notoriously defy logic when it comes to what someone is willing to pay (notice how I didn't say valuation...).

By and large they do not turn nearly the type of profit that justifies the increase in value when the for sale sign goes up. Look no further than the Ottawa Senators recently. Eugene Melnyk refinanced the team at least twice to keep the lights on, including from the league itself, yet 20 years later he sold the franchise for about 8X of what he bought it for.

The small market franchises, which make up the majority of CHL franchises, are bought by local millionaires that want to join a club, just like in the big leagues. They do so with very little concern for whether the business turns a profit or not. It is ego, clout, hobby, PR and 'community service' driven and losses are written off against other business' etc... That is par for the course with 99% of sports franchises around the world at every single level.

If you can't figure out then why anyone would dare get involved and you really want to get your head spinning, go look into the business model behind 99% of professional motorsports if you want to be truly perplexed at how much wealthy people will spend to be close to a sport they are passionate about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mouser

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad