A class-action lawsuit was recently filed in federal court in New York, challenging the major junior hockey system in North America for violating U.S. antitrust law. The lawsuit, brought by divisions of the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions and two former major junior players, targets the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, and Western Hockey League, which together form the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), as well as the NHL.
The plaintiffs argue that these leagues exploit young players by restricting their ability to choose where they want to play and consequently limiting their compensation. The NHL is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit due to its support and financing of the CHL. The complaint alleges that the NHL and its teams exert significant control over the major junior defendants, thus enabling their alleged conspiracy.
The lawyers involved in the case describe the major junior hockey system as a 'cartel' that artificially suppresses and standardizes compensation by denying players their freedom of choice, movement, and the ability to play for the club of their choosing. The CHL has yet to issue an official comment on the complaint and stated that they need time to thoroughly review its contents before providing further information.
Although eight of the CHL's 60 teams are based in the United States, an expert in sports labor law argues that the lawsuit is not limited to the U.S. jurisdiction, considering that the end users of the CHL's product are NHL players from both the U.S. and Canada.
Under the current system, each U.S. state and Canadian province is assigned to one of the three CHL leagues: the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (QMJHL), Ontario Hockey League (OHL), or Western Hockey League (WHL). Players from these regions who wish to play in the CHL are unable to choose among the leagues. Instead, they are drafted, and their rights are owned by the team for their entire junior-age career.
Unlike professional athletes in other sports, junior hockey players have not had a union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements on their behalf. This lawsuit mirrors efforts by minor league baseball players in recent years to unionize, which ultimately led to a deal with Major League Baseball in 2022.
Legal expert Michael LeRoy compares this case to the ongoing battles of college athletes against the NCAA for name, image, and likeness rights and easier transfer procedures. Interestingly, the lawsuit points out that the NCAA has a more liberal system of athletic labor compared to the major junior hockey system.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to declare the geographical draft restrictions, contracts, and agreements in place unenforceable. Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking damages for players' compensation and league profits. They have requested a jury trial to address the matter.
The two individual former major junior players involved in the lawsuit are Isaiah DiLaura and Tanner Gould. DiLaura, 23, hails from Lakeville, Minnesota, while Gould, 19, is from Calgary, Alberta. DiLaura expressed his hope that the lawsuit will put an end to the treatment of teenage players as disposable objects.
This lawsuit could potentially have significant implications for the major junior hockey system in North America and may result in changes to how young players are drafted, compensated, and able to exercise their freedom of choice in selecting teams. The case is still in its early stages, and it remains to be seen how the court will rule on the matter.
