Hockey players sue NCAA over CHL player suspensions

Article Contents

Rylan Masterson once played two exhibition games for the Windsor Spitfires, which made his chances of a spot in American college hockey zero.

The 19-year-old player has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA challenging the illegal boycott of anyone who played even one game in the Canadian Hockey League's preseason.

If successful, this could increase competition between the top two producers of NHL players and allow the CHL to pay its members more.

Article Contents

In 2022, when he was 16 years old, he played two exhibition games for the Windsor Spitfires of the Canadian Hockey League and, as a result of the illegal conspiracy in violation of U.S. antitrust laws alleged therein, lost his right to play Division I hockey for a member institution of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, according to Masterson's complaint, recently filed in Buffalo, N.Y.

The proposed class-action lawsuit, filed under U.S. antitrust laws, names the NCAA as defendants along with 10 U.S. colleges and universities. It seeks unspecified damages.

If a judge approves the class action lawsuit, anyone who has played in or attended college in the CHL since August 12, 2020, will be eligible to join.

The NCAA and CHL did not respond to requests for comment. No one within the Windsor Spitfires organization wanted to discuss the NCAA rule that bars anyone playing in the CHL.

It's a legal matter, the Spitfires said in an email. No comment.

Masterson's attorney also declined to comment.

The lawsuit is based on the rule that anyone who has played even one game in the CHL is ineligible to play Division 1 hockey because the NCAA considers them professionals.

Article Contents

According to Masterson's lawsuit, the NCAA rule against prior professional experience applies only to men's ice hockey and skiing.

The complaint also alleges that the NCAA generally allows athletes who have played in other professional hockey leagues, such as in Europe, to compete in Division 1 sports.

The only exception that applies to all NCAA college sports is for CHL players, who are excluded because they are professional athletes, the claim says.

Masterson claims the rule is illegal, but argues that CHL players should not be considered professionals anyway because they do not receive a salary, but rather a stipend of up to $600 per month.

Masterson, who currently plays for the Ontario Junior Hockey League's Fort Erie Meteors, claims the rule is about competition for top players. The complaint states that North America's best young hockey players have two primary routes to the NHL.

The first option is to play Division I hockey at the collegiate level in the United States, where student-athletes typically receive full scholarships for their significant role in generating more than $150 million a year for their colleges and universities, the subpoena said.

Article Contents

The second option is the CHL, a junior league for players up to and including 20 years of age, which also includes the Western Hockey League, the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League and the Ontario Hockey League.

The lawsuit, which alleges that NCAA teams operate as a cartel, argues that the primary purpose of the organization's rules is to deter players from joining the CHL, not to promote amateurism.

Furthermore, the Boycott places sixteen-year-olds in the impossible position of deciding at that young age whether they will ever play Division I hockey. It is illegal under antitrust laws per se, also because it is a group boycott.

Deciding to join the CHL at such a young age could mean giving up many lucrative benefits later in life.

According to the complaint, these benefits range from grants worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to sponsorship agreements and the right to earn royalties on name, image and likeness.

The lawsuit also alleges that the rule results in players earning less money in the CHL because the league doesn't have to worry about retaining them once they play one game there until the NHL comes knocking.

Plaintiff and class allege that defendants’ anticompetitive conduct caused them to sell their labor at below-competitive prices, lose valuable athletic scholarships, and be excluded from Division I, Masterson alleges in the complaint. Such injuries are clearly the type the antitrust laws were designed to prevent.

twilhelm@postmedia.com

Article Contents