NHL, CHL, Major Junior Hockey Leagues Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Systemic Exploitation, Abuse of Young Players

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A massive proposed class action lawsuit alleges the National Hockey League (NHL), Canadian Hockey League (CHL), several major junior leagues and their member clubs have violated federal antitrust laws by surreptitiously agreeing to restrain the services of hockey players between the ages of 16 and 20 to developmental training leagues, resulting in the “systematic exploitation and abuse” of major junior league players. 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

The sprawling 106-page complaint alleges the major junior league defendants—the Western Hockey League (WHL), Ontario Major Junior Hockey League (OHL) and Québec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (QMJHL)—have, in coordination with with the CHL and the involvement of the NHL, entered into a series of agreements to suppress competition for players’ services, including by allocating geographic territories exclusively to each league, conducting involuntary player drafts, granting each drafting club exclusive rights to a player’s services for their entire major junior career, and restricting their compensation. 

Per the case, the major junior league defendants have adopted a “win at all costs” mentality that has fostered a toxic culture in which the mistreatment of grossly underpaid young athletes has become the norm. 

According to the antitrust lawsuit, the economic, physical, psychological and sexual abuse endured by major junior players is a “foreseeable consequence” of a system in which the hallmarks of a competitive labor market—i.e., freedom of choice, freedom of movement and the freedom to play for the club of their choice—are absent. 

“As a result of the foregoing per se illegal agreements,” the lawsuit says, “there is no competition among Major Junior Defendants to source or sign Major Junior Players.” 

The filing accuses the NHL of being a co-conspirator to the major junior league defendants, who receive annual funding from the professional league. The NHL and its teams, through various funding mechanisms, exert “significant influence and control” over the major junior leagues and teams, thereby “facilitating [the alleged] conspiracy,” the lawsuit alleges. 

The case, filed by the Swiss-based World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division and World Association of Icehockey Players Unions USA Corporation on February 14 in New York federal court, adds that the apparently anticompetitive agreements among the major junior league defendants, in addition to “perpetuating” the abuse of young players, has artificially slashed their compensation and deprived them of fair pay for their labor.

The suit relays that although the WHL, OHL and QMJHL are all members of the CHL, they are each independent leagues capable of producing regular-season and playoff games “without entering into any agreement” with each other. Nevertheless, the major junior leagues have allegedly agreed to allocate exclusive, non-overlapping territories among themselves, including among the 50 states, with each league having the exclusive right to recruit and source players from within their allotted territory. 

In addition to their territorial allotment agreements, the defendants have further agreed to restrain competition by having each league operate an involuntary draft for all North American hockey players who will reach 16 during their first major junior hockey season, the lawsuit says. 

“Specifically, Major Junior Defendants have agreed, therefore, to conduct involuntary drafts within their exclusive territories, to draft Players at the same age, and to respect the rights of drafting Clubs across all three Leagues. Major Junior Defendants have engaged in these blatantly anticompetitive drafts for decades, without ever having entered into a [collective bargaining agreement] with Major Junior Players, let alone a [collective bargaining agreement] that sanctioned such drafts.”

As a result of the involuntary draft, players may be drafted even if they did not apply to participate, and the end result is that the drafting club “enjoy[s] exclusive rights to that Player for the entirety of his major junior hockey career,” the complaint states. To this end, the major junior defendants have conspired to further eliminate labor market competition by prohibiting major junior players from providing their services to any other club until they reach their age-20 season, the suit adds. 

“This anticompetitive restraint on competition prevents Major Junior Players who sign with a Major Junior Club, at any stage of their major junior careers, to negotiate with other clubs, either within or outside the Major Junior Leagues, for their hockey services,” the lawsuit argues, adding that, since players have no ability to negotiate with multiple clubs, the defendants have ensured that they “cannot earn more than the meager and artificially depressed” wages the major junior leagues and teams have agreed among themselves to pay. 

The lawsuit goes on to allege the defendants have also conspired to prevent major junior players from receiving any money in connection with their exploitation of the players’ names, images and/or likenesses (NIL) in merchandise, video games and other products. 

“Specifically, Defendants have agreed among themselves to include non-negotiable provisions in each Player’s [standard player agreement] that assign all rights to commercially exploit his name, image, and likeness entirely to Major Junior Defendants. To be clear, Defendants earn money from licensing and otherwise commercially exploiting Major Junior Players’ NILs; they just do not share any of that money with Major Junior Players themselves.” 

According to the complaint, the junior players in the American Hockey League (AHL) and East Coast Hockey League (ECHL), both of which are developmental leagues whose clubs are largely owned and controlled by the NHL and its teams, are paid significantly more than major junior players. However, the non-party AHL and ECHL “further reinforce the lack of competition” among the major junior league defendants’ players by agreeing not to recruit players from those leagues, the case claims. 

“Taken together, Defendants’ anticompetitive agreements allow them to confront Major Junior Players with the collective economic might of 6 hockey leagues, comprised of more than 146 clubs—virtually the entire North American ice hockey industry. And because Major Junior Players are not represented by a labor union in their relations with Major Junior Defendants, each Player—in some cases children as young as 14 years old—faces that unified economic power wholly on his own. The result is predictable, but shocking: No freedom of choice or movement, involuntary and non-negotiable contract terms that are little short of indentured servitude, token and non-competitive compensation, and a culture that forces Players to choose between their dreams of playing in the NHL and their education. Defendants’ exploitation and abuse of boys during their formative mid-to-late-teen years is systemic, pervasive, and likely to inflict scars that will affect these boys throughout their lives.” 

The lawsuit looks to cover all major junior hockey players who play or played major junior hockey for any of the defendant clubs at any time between February 14, 2020 and the date of judgment in the litigation. 

A full list of the defendants can be found in the PDF complaint embedded below. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.