RIT Named in Lawsuit Alleging NCAA Hockey Rules Violate Antitrust Laws

Rochester Institute of Technology has been named in a class action lawsuit accusing 10 schools of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to prevent players from Canada's top junior hockey leagues from participating in NCAA hockey.

Under the bylaws of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, anyone who has played even one exhibition game for a member team of the Canadian Hockey League is prohibited from playing NCAA Division I hockey, as they are effectively considered professionals.

The lawsuit alleges that 10 schools and the NCAA unlawfully conspired to enforce that rule by boycotting CHL players during recruiting.

The lawsuit, which says more than $5 million is at stake, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York by two law firms, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP and Berger Montague. Rylan Masterson of Fort Erie, Ontario, is the lead plaintiff.

In the fall of 2022, when he was 16, Masterson played in two exhibition games with the Windsor Spitfires of the Ontario Hockey League, forfeiting his eligibility to play NCAA Division I hockey, even though “he is ready, willing and able,” the complaint states.

According to the lawyers, the defendants' actions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which prohibits monopolistic business practices.

Also named as defendants are Canisius College, Niagara University, University of Notre Dame, Boston College, Boston University, University of Denver, Quinnipiac University, University of St. Thomas and Stonehill College.

The best young players in North America have two good options when pursuing their dream of playing in the National Hockey League: sign with an NCAA Division I school or skate in one of the three major CHL junior leagues: the Ontario Hockey League, the Western Hockey League and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League.

The top pick in the 2024 NHL Draft, held in June, was 18-year-old Macklin Celebrini, a native of North Vancouver, British Columbia, who played for Boston College but never played for a major junior hockey program in Canada.

The NCAA has maintained that because CHL players receive a stipend (no more than $600 a month, the lawsuit says, and often less), they are paid to play and thus are considered professionals. For tax purposes, the stipend, according to court documents, “is characterized as an expense reimbursement, not income.”

Using that standard to determine professionalism, the lawsuit alleges that NCAA Division I players should also be considered professionals because they are compensated with financial aid in the form of scholarships, as well as training assistance, the free use of high-end training facilities and a cash stipend of up to $5,980 per academic year. They also have the ability to negotiate individual name, likeness and image (NIL) deals.

The issue was discussed at the NCAA's annual coaches conference in May, the lawsuit says, though no vote was taken to “uphold the boycott.”

“Instead, they acknowledged that the boycott was on shaky legal grounds and said they had 'formed a committee to monitor challenges to the rule' and 'keep discussions going about how college hockey could best respond to a change if it were forced by the courts.'”

That is a clear indication, the lawsuit says, that the boycott “has nothing to do with promoting or protecting amateurism; instead, it is a commercial rule with commercial purposes to harm the NCAA’s main competitor for talent, the CHL.”

In reality, it was probably only a matter of time before a lawsuit was filed, said Steve Bartlett, the founder of Bartlett Hockey, a Pittsford-based agency that represents dozens of professional hockey players and advises amateur players.

“The NCAA is pretty susceptible to attack,” Bartlett said. “With the (transfer) portal and with NIL money, etc., it opens the door to whether $60 a week for CHL players should make them pros.”

RIT is primarily an NCAA Division III school for athletics, but was promoted to Division I for men's hockey in 2005-06 and to Division I for women's hockey in 2012-13. The school declined to comment on the lawsuit.

We are aware of this filing. RIT does not comment on pending litigation,” said Bob Finnerty, associate vice president of university communications.

By denying players who have participated in a CHL game the opportunity to play for an NCAA Division I school, the defendants, according to the complaint, are preventing competition between the CHL and the NCAA for top players.

In doing so, the defendants “artificially” suppress player compensation and artificially create less competitive leagues, the complaint alleges.

The lawsuit also states that the boycott “puts 16-year-olds in the impossible position of having to decide at such a young age whether they ever want to play Division I hockey.” It is illegal under antitrust laws per se, also because it is a group boycott.

“In a perfectly competitive market, top hockey players could and would move between these leagues as their ages, career goals and circumstances change,” the complaint said.

CHL teams and NCAA hockey programs at many schools are highly profitable and generate significant revenue streams, the lawsuit says.

“In compensation for the value they provide,” the filing states, “Division I hockey players receive full scholarships, valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as the right to earn royalties on their name, image and likeness (NIL) used by commercial entities.”

The group of lawsuits includes anyone who played in the CHL at any time between August 12, 2020 and the present, or who attended college during that time after playing in the CHL, and seeks to redress the “harm” caused by the boycott, “including through punitive damages.”

[email protected]/(585) 653-4020

C