Class action lawsuits filed against OHL, QMJHL, & WHL

[seanlinden]

I'm sure there are players who would love to play at home, and there are some who do. The vast majority of players, however, do not have a CHL team in their hometown so that's not a valid option is it?

Players benefit from playing in the CHL and the CHL benefits from having players play the game, and from fans who buy tickets. There is no slave labour situation here, nor are players forced to play in the CHL. Enough with the cartel nonsense.

Nope, but they'd be able to have the 60 CHL teams compete against each other for who can give him the best offer; or find the most local team to them outside of the CHL.

Nobody is arguing that players benefit from the CHL -- the question is whether the benefit they recieve meets the minimum legal compensation as outlined in the various provinces (and states). As for it being a cartel, there really isn't an arguement against it. You've got 60 competitive employers who have banded together to set the wage rate for their labour... it's price fixing and illegal in Canada.

 

[Fugu]

Nope, but they'd be able to have the 60 CHL teams compete against each other for who can give him the best offer.

Nobody is arguing that players benefit from the CHL -- the question is whether the benefit they recieve meets the minimum legal compensation as outlined in the various provinces (and states). As for it being a cartel, there really isn't an arguement against it. You've got 60 competitive employers who have banded together to set the wage rate for their labour... it's price fixing and illegal in Canada.

And unlike the pro leagues, these employers cannot refer to a CBA that says the players collectively agreed to the conditions.

 

[superdeluxe]

If teams can't afford to pay their players a fair wage they should fold.

The NHL should subsidize these development leagues.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

They're asking for $180m in back wages, overtime & vacation pay, and punitive damages.

Best to aim high!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-over-financial-compensation/article21165235/

Here is the CHL's statement

http://www.chl.ca/article/statement-from-the-commissioners-of-the-canadian-hockey-league

 

[Siludin]

Who is he to speak for the players?
MOD

A lot of players are happy to get the opportunity to play the game, ride the bus, get exposure to scouts, and get an education or pro contract at the end of it.

A lot of CHL teams would be in serious financial trouble if they had to pay players. It'll probably hurt more people than it will help.

"Opportunity" for some is "slavery" to others. Just because you romanticize the CHL experience doesn't make it unlawful and, by definition, a class-action lawsuit fights for the entire "class", which means all the players who have gone through the CHL who wish to jump aboard the claim.

 

[Siludin]

I'd like to know where they're getting that figure, because I'd be shocked if any team even hits the $10-million mark. Here are the top drawing teams from each of the three leagues, by combined (regular season + playoff) attendance:

WHL - Calgary Hitmen - 319,582
OHL - London Knights - 342,342
QMJHL - Quebec Remparts - 357,743

Playoffs were a relative non-factor for all three as London played just four home playoffs games, Calgary three, and Quebec two. So a reasonable maximum for ticket income would be to take the top ticket price (single game adult) and multiply it by total attendance. That gives us:

WHL - Calgary Hitmen - 319,582 x $26.00 = $8,309,132
OHL - London Knights - 342,342 x $19.75 = $6,761,254
QMJHL - Quebec Remparts - 357,743 x $15 = $5,366,145

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a team with a higher max ticket price than Calgary. Realistically, you're looking at a ceiling of $9-million in ticket revenue per season. I'm interested to see where the other $91-million comes from...

They are probably gathering the figure from the combined lost wages of all current are former CHL players. So essentially it's aggregated minimum wage. Nothing to do with revenue here - this isn't an NHL CBA issue.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

In the NCAA, a lot of people seem to forget that most of these athletes are on scholarships. A 4 year education at these schools, including room and board can be well over $10,000 per year. They are getting paid in the form of a scholarship.

With Room and Board, an NCAA grant-in-aid is ~$25,000-$65,000 per year.

http://money.cnn.com/tools/collegecost/collegecost.html

 

[Shawa666]

It was about time. It's ridiculous how the players are treated unfairly in these "development" leagues.

I think a similar story is going on with the NCAA.

These guys should be paid.

They should also pay for their equipment, board and other things the teams pay for them.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

My understanding is that they have 18 months from the end of their overage year to enrol in school. And yes, the only contract that nullifies the education package is an NHL contract.

This quote from The Star contradicts your post:

"The statement of claim takes sharp aim at the CHL’s “education package,” which provides scholarship funding to players who register in a recognized college or university program within 18 months of their last game in the league.

Those who choose to extend their hockey careers by signing with professional teams in Europe or North America after their CHL careers, or those that fail to maintain a certain grade point average, lose that funding."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...gainst_canadian_hockey_league_over_wages.html

Another quote from this story makes the education package seem very suspect.

“On average, a teams’ total annual payout for all players on the team is $30,000 a year toward the education package,” the statement reads. “This amount is equivalent to only four former players per team actually reaping the benefits of the education package.”

You mentioned you have the Rangers financial data. Did they pay out well over $30,000 per year in university scholarships?

 

[CharlieGirl]

This quote from The Star contradicts your post:

"The statement of claim takes sharp aim at the CHL’s “education package,†which provides scholarship funding to players who register in a recognized college or university program within 18 months of their last game in the league.

Those who choose to extend their hockey careers by signing with professional teams in Europe or North America after their CHL careers, or those that fail to maintain a certain grade point average, lose that funding."

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...gainst_canadian_hockey_league_over_wages.html

According to Branch, under the new expanded benefits package, players will now have extra time for using the money they receive for post-secondary education. Previously the league had given players 18 months from their last game played to use their school packages. That funding disappeared, however, if the player signed a contract with a National Hockey League or American Hockey League team.

The amended package now gives a player 18 months from the end of his overage year – the year a player competes as a 20-year-old – regardless of when he leaves the league, to use the education funds. So, if a player left the OHL at 19, he’d have 30 months to receive funding to assist with post-secondary education. In addition, if the player now signs an AHL deal, his package remains valid.

“One thing the league has done is say, ‘the only way your scholarship can be negated is if you should sign and play in the National Hockey League,’ †said Branch. “So hopefully that has reduced some of the issues and concerns players have in following their dreams to pursue a professional hockey career.â€

According to Mr. Branch, the Star has old information.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ohl-up...ges-to-player-benefit-packages-223242217.html

 

[East Hockey]

"Opportunity" for some is "slavery" to others. Just because you romanticize the CHL experience doesn't make it unlawful and, by definition, a class-action lawsuit fights for the entire "class", which means all the players who have gone through the CHL who wish to jump aboard the claim.

I don't know of any CHL players that were taken from their home and forced to play hockey against their will

 

[radapex]

RE: the education rules:

Do they have 18 months from the end of their overage year to complete their degree?

They have 18 months from the end of their overage season to enroll.

Are they allowed to sign professional contracts excludung an NHL contract, ie. AHL/ECHL/SEL etc?

Yes. However, they forfeit one year of their scholarship for every year of minor pro hockey they play. If they sign an NHL contract, they forfeit the whole thing.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

According to Mr. Branch, the Star has old information.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ohl-up...ges-to-player-benefit-packages-223242217.html

Thanks. I may be reading that quote incorrectly. I interpret it to mean the player has until 18 months after their overage year to use the funds. From the same article:

"So, if a player left the OHL at 19, he’d have 30 months to receive funding to assist with post-secondary education. In addition, if the player now signs an AHL deal, his package remains valid."

Do you interpret the way I did?

I think the CHL is going to have a rough time defending against this lawsuit. I also believe the NCAA is going to have the same issues. When examining how both systems work, I believethe players seem to be employees. If that is correct, in both cases they would be subject to labor law.

"Opportunity" for some is "slavery" to others. Just because you romanticize the CHL experience doesn't make it unlawful and, by definition, a class-action lawsuit fights for the entire "class", which means all the players who have gone through the CHL who wish to jump aboard the claim.

I would hardly call it slavery. While I think athletes, especially young athletes sometimes get a bad deal in both Major Junior hockey and NCAA sports, no one is forcing them to play the sport.

 

[radapex]

Thanks. I may be reading that quote incorrectly. I interpret it to mean the player has until 18 months after their overage year to use the funds. From the same article:

"So, if a player left the OHL at 19, he’d have 30 months to receive funding to assist with post-secondary education. In addition, if the player now signs an AHL deal, his package remains valid."

Do you interpret the way I did?

I think the CHL is going to have a rough time defending against this lawsuit. I also believe the NCAA is going to have the same issues. When examining how both systems work, I believethe players seem to be employees. If that is correct, in both cases they would be subject to labor law.



I would hardly call it slavery. While I think athletes, especially young athletes sometimes get a bad deal in both Major Junior hockey and NCAA sports, no one is forcing them to play the sport.

The NCAA will be able to defend it because student athletes can be compensated up to as much as $100,000 per year in tuition, books, room & board, stipend, equipment, etc. A lot of CIS schools do the same thing, except they can usually knock tuition off the list because it's covered by the CHL for just about every player that heads there.

I also wonder how much value could be placed on on the scouting/visibility side of things. The CHL and NCAA are two of the top developmental leagues in the world as far as the NHL goes. Force the issue too much, those leagues go away, and all of a sudden NHL teams are going to be looking elsewhere.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

This case is interesting:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/2000/2000canlii460/2000canlii460.html

It's a tax court decision from a case between the MNR & the Brandon Wheat Kings. Where the ownership was assessed under the CPP Act and the EI Act on the basis that the players were engaged in "insurable and pensionable employment" (which would mean the team would have to make certain deductions and remit them to the CRA). McCrimmon took the position that the players weren't employees but instead were "participants in an established training program having a sophisticated infrastructure and the overriding component was educational in nature."

The tax court rejected that. Here are some of the findings...

[19] While there is an educational component attached to the contract between the Wheat Kings and the players - and that is commendable - the players are paid to play hockey for the team in the WHL. They are entitled to one year's books and tuition at a post-secondary educational institution for each year they have played for a WHL team. It is the completion of the playing time that gives rise to the educational entitlement. The payment for playing hockey is modest but all their expenses are covered, including room and board. However, the requirement to play hockey is not inextricably bound to a condition of scholarship as may be the case with a university since attendance at a post-secondary educational institution was not mandatory for remaining on the roster.
...
[22] It is extremely doubtful that Parliament was concerned about massive unemployment among the ranks of 16 to 20-year old hockey players. It is also difficult to imagine how unemployment would result other than in the circumstance where a player was released outright or was unable to play for any other team and was therefore in need of collecting the extremely modest benefits during a transition period. The WHL has operated for many years and has put emphasis on the value of obtaining an education. Kelly McCrimmon serves as a model to other players who can continue to be involved - at some level - in the hockey industry after their playing days have come to an end. But, the business of the Wheat Kings is simply the business of hockey. It is a commercial organization - albeit beloved by the citizens of Brandon - carrying on business for profit. The players are employees who receive remuneration - defined as cash - pursuant to the appropriate regulations governing insurable earnings. It would require an amendment to subsection 5(2) of the Employment Insurance Act in order to exclude players in the WHL - and other junior hockey players within the CHL - from the category of insurable employment.

Again, it's a tax decision...but still it's interesting and informative.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I don't know of any CHL players that were taken from their home and forced to play hockey against their will

They all are. There's a draft they're forced to go into and they have no control over any of their rights over the next three years of their lives: They can't choose where to play, they can't make money, and they can't go to school all while making millions for their owners.

Don't feed me crap that they aren't forced to play hockey: If you're good at something you should attempt to make a career out of it.

 

[DyerMaker66*]

I would hardly call it slavery. While I think athletes, especially young athletes sometimes get a bad deal in both Major Junior hockey and NCAA sports, no one is forcing them to play the sport.

Not being forced to do something means you're being paid a fair wage?

 

[Ernie]

The NCAA will be able to defend it because student athletes can be compensated up to as much as $100,000 per year in tuition, books, room & board, stipend, equipment, etc. A lot of CIS schools do the same thing, except they can usually knock tuition off the list because it's covered by the CHL for just about every player that heads there.

I also wonder how much value could be placed on on the scouting/visibility side of things. The CHL and NCAA are two of the top developmental leagues in the world as far as the NHL goes. Force the issue too much, those leagues go away, and all of a sudden NHL teams are going to be looking elsewhere.

That's not a great argument, in my opinion. Only a small percentage of CHL players go on to be NHLers.

The NHL doesn't really need a 60 team CHL. They can (and do) go mining for prospects at Junior A levels.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

Not being forced to do something means you're being paid a fair wage?

Those are two different points. A slave is forced to work against their will. CHL players choose to play hockey (or not), yet they have no say for which team. They can be traded at any time. They are very much under contract.

As Fugu pointed out, there is no cba. As such are their drafts legal? How can players give up rights without collective bargaining?

 

[East Hockey]

They all are. There's a draft they're forced to go into and they have no control over any of their rights over the next three years of their lives: They can't choose where to play, they can't make money, and they can't go to school all while making millions for their owners.

Don't feed me crap that they aren't forced to play hockey: If you're good at something you should attempt to make a career out of it.

Dante Fabbro was selected #8 overall in the WHL draft and he chose to play for the Penticton Vees in the BCHL. I didn't see anyone take him from draft day, throw him in a shack, and force him to play hockey for Seattle.

You always have a choice. You could go play US Junior/NCAA, Jr. A in Canada, stay in Midget, or get a normal job and play hockey late at night with your friends There was a QMJHL pick from New Brunswick this year that went to Sweden for frig sakes. The only people that might pressure them is their friends & family.

It's pretty comparable to school really. If I decide at 16 that I want to be a lawyer, I can't just walk into a law firm and expect to get paid for my work. I have to go to a school that's going to charge me tons of money, probably work an unpaid internship, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to battle it out with others for the same few jobs in my field of study.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Dante Fabbro was selected #8 overall in the WHL draft and he chose to play for the Penticton Vees in the BCHL. I didn't see anyone take him from draft day, throw him in a shack, and force him to play hockey for Seattle.

You always have a choice. You could go play US Junior/NCAA, Jr. A in Canada, stay in Midget, or get a normal job and play hockey late at night with your friends There was a QMJHL pick from New Brunswick this year that went to Sweden for frig sakes. The only people that might pressure them is their friends & family.

It's pretty comparable to school really. If I decide at 16 that I want to be a lawyer, I can't just walk into a law firm and expect to get paid for my work. I have to go to a school that's going to charge me tons of money, probably work an unpaid internship, and at the end of the day I'm going to have to battle it out with others for the same few jobs in my field of study.

It's not comparable at all. You can attend whatever school you want, provided they are willing to accept you; and you can go work at any law firm you want, provided they hire you. When you do get hired, you have the right to negotiate your salary.

Do you think it would be fair if, for university, rather than applying to schools of your choice you were told which school you had to attend and if you didn't like it but still wanted to go to university you'd have to move to another country or just forgo it altogether?

 

[East Hockey]

It's not comparable at all. You can attend whatever school you want, provided they are willing to accept you; and you can go work at any law firm you want, provided they hire you. When you do get hired, you have the right to negotiate your salary.

Do you think it would be fair if, for university, rather than applying to schools of your choice you were told which school you had to attend and if you didn't like it but still wanted to go to university you'd have to move to another country or just forgo it altogether?

You can play in whatever league you want - CHL, Jr. A, Midget, US junior, NCAA, European junior, etc. if they want you.
You can try out for any pro team you want provided they want you.
When a pro team signs you, you have the right to negotiate your salary.

In my example the universities were the different leagues, not the individual teams. You're revolving your point around the draft, something that 99% of the players that get drafted love. If the purpose is to eliminate the draft then I doubt anyone will even pay attention to the lawsuit.

 

[surixon]

Not being forced to do something means you're being paid a fair wage?

You do realize that cash isn't the only form of compensation. Plus all these kids have options, they can choose to go the the NCAA or they can choose not to play hockey, get a job at McDonalds and pay their way through University like most of us had too. These kids aren't hard done by at all, they get some of the best training and coaching for their profession free of charge. They get a comprehensive health and benefit plan and all their expenses covered for them. They even get a little cash on the side as well. If they are unable to make it as a professional hockey player, the education package serves as backup plan. It's a pretty good gig imo.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

You can play in whatever league you want - CHL, Jr. A, Midget, US junior, NCAA, European junior, etc. if they want you.
You can try out for any pro team you want provided they want you.
When a pro team signs you, you have the right to negotiate your salary.

In my example the universities were the different leagues, not the individual teams. You're revolving your point around the draft, something that 99% of the players that get drafted love. If the purpose is to eliminate the draft then I doubt anyone will even pay attention to the lawsuit.

Your example of a single university representing an entire league makes no sense. My example does.

If you're interested in fairness, then why not let the kids go to whatever team agrees to take them for whatever compensation package they negotiate? If I'm a high skilled player and I'd like to play for the London Knights, why should I be forced to move to Sudbury?

You do realize that cash isn't the only form of compensation. Plus all these kids have options, they can choose to go the the NCAA or they can choose not to play hockey, get a job at McDonalds and pay their way through University like most of us had too. These kids aren't hard done by at all, they get some of the best training and coaching for their profession free of charge. They get a comprehensive health and benefit plan and all their expenses covered for them. They even get a little cash on the side as well. If they are unable to make it as a professional hockey player, the education package serves as backup plan. It's a pretty good gig imo.

Why not get rid of minimum wage altogether, then? Under your reasoning, if an individual doesn't want to work for $8/hr then they just don't have to take that job.

 

[radapex]

Your example of a single university representing an entire league makes no sense. My example does.

If you're interested in fairness, then why not let the kids go to whatever team agrees to take them for whatever compensation package they negotiate? If I'm a high skilled player and I'd like to play for the London Knights, why should I be forced to move to Sudbury?



Why not get rid of minimum wage altogether, then? Under your reasoning, if an individual doesn't want to work for $8/hr then they just don't have to take that job.

For the same reason the worst team in the NHL has the best chance at picking 1st overall - parity. Without parity, the leagues would falter. In fact, many CHL teams really only survive because of that star player they get once every 10 years or so. For instance, the attendance in Halifax has almost doubled since they drafted MacKinnon and Drouin. There's a good chance that it'll fall back down over the next few years now that they're both out of the picture.