The spectrum of antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA widened this week when 19-year-old Ontario hockey player Rylan Masterson sued the NCAA and 10 universities in federal court in New York over a “boycott” of Canadian Hockey League players.
In a modern world where college athletes can earn millions of dollars through name, image and likeness deals, and where former professional hockey players on European teams are eligible for Division I hockey, banning players who as teenagers made modest amounts of money playing in CHL youth leagues from playing seems outdated and more prone than ever to legal challenge.
More on Sportico.com
Masterson, a defenseman who most recently played for the Fort Erie Meteors in the Greater Ontario Junior Hockey League, lost his NCAA eligibility in 2022 when he played two exhibition games for the Windsor Spitfires of the OHL, part of the CHL. CHL players are not eligible for the NCAA because they are considered “professional athletes” and therefore not amateurs.
Masterson is a high school graduate and would like to play division hockey, preferably at a college near his home in Ontario. The 10 colleges named as defendants include Boston College, Boston University and Niagara University.
The antitrust theory underlying Masterton vs. NCAA It is the same as the one used in O’Bannonorth, Alston, Home and other lawsuits challenging amateurism rules. Masterson contends that the NCAA and its member schools, which are competing businesses, have conspired to prevent athletes from competing in the same way. Those athletes, in turn, suffer financial and professional harm when potential competitors agree not to compete or to compete less aggressively than the market would otherwise incentivize.
The NCAA rule disqualifying a hockey player who has played a CHL game is presented as an impediment to “competition between the CHL and NCAA for the highest level of players.” This supposedly leads to an elimination of compensation for those players and places “16-year-olds in the impossible position of deciding, at that young age, whether they will ever want to play Division I hockey.” Fans and consumers also suffer a form of harm, as DI hockey would be improved if CHL players were able to participate in it.
Masterson is represented by Richard A. Lafont and other attorneys from two law firms, Freedman Normand Friedland LLP and Berger Montague PC. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, whose courtroom is located at the Robert H. Jackson U.S. Courthouse in Buffalo, New York.
Masterson is seeking to have his lawsuit certified as a class action on behalf of everyone who played in the CHL from Aug. 12, 2020, to the present or who attended college between Aug. 12, 2020, and the present after playing in the CHL. There are 60 teams in the three leagues (OHL, QMJHL and WHL) that make up the CHL, meaning the class, if certified, would include thousands of players. Masterson wants an injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing the rule and for a jury to award monetary damages, which under antitrust law could be tripled.
CHL player compensation is important to the case, as it involves determining whether those players are “professional athletes.” Masterson stresses that CHL players “do not receive a salary.” Instead, they receive a stipend that is intended to cover living expenses (not a wage for work, NIL payment, or other compensatory purpose) and is no more than $600 per month. Masterson further notes that the stipend is not treated as income for tax purposes and is instead classified as an expense allowance.
While there are several possible routes to the NHL, Masterson says CHL and DI hockey teams “are the primary providers” and give players “the best chance to make a career out of playing hockey.” The complaint states that more than 50% of NHL players played in the CHL and about 30% played DI hockey. Another route to the NHL is the United States Hockey League, another junior league, but Masterson says its quality of play is “consistently viewed as inferior to the CHL” and it is more accurately viewed as a provider for the DI.
Masterson’s complaint argues that the NCAA’s ban on CHL players is meaningless since the NCAA allows other professional hockey players to compete.
To that end, the complaint cites BU defenseman Tom Willander, who was selected with the 11th pick by the Vancouver Canucks.He 2023 NHL Draft pick. Prior to playing for the Terriers, Willander was a professional hockey player in Sweden.
The complaint also notes that USHL players, who are NCAA-eligible, receive stipends similar to those of CHL players, and that the NCAA allows athletes in other sports “to receive significant compensation without losing their NCAA eligibility.” The complaint notes that tennis players can earn up to $10,000 a year without losing their eligibility, and that other NCAA athletes, such as swimmers Katie Ledecky and Joseph Schooling, earned hundreds of thousands of dollars while retaining their eligibility.
Masterson says the NCAA has considered dropping the boycott but has not done so. He says that in May, NCAA coaches held their annual meeting in Florida and discussed legal concerns about the boycott but chose not to vote against it.
The NCAA will respond to the lawsuit and ask for its dismissal. It is expected to argue that the rule promotes amateurism goals related to the distinction between college athletes, who are also students, and professional athletes.
But that line of reasoning hasn’t worked in recent NCAA cases and seems especially vulnerable to censure in this situation.
“The boycott of CHL players makes little sense given the substantial NIL money earned by current college athletes and the NCAA eligibility of players who have played professional hockey outside of North America,” said the attorney and retired hockey player. Jonathan Calla he said in a telephone interview.
In 1994-95, Calla totaled 103 points for the Cowichan Valley Capitals in the British Columbia Hockey League before joining Northeastern University, where he continued his hockey career and education. He is currently a principal at Goulston & Storrs in Boston and serves as outside general counsel to Winners Alliance, a global athlete-focused business solution for group licensing, and the Professional Women’s Hockey League.
Calla stressed the importance of providing optionality to young players and their families.
“Historically, elite teenage hockey players and their families have been faced with a decision that, if the CHL is chosen, it means losing the opportunity to earn a college scholarship and play DI hockey at an NCAA school. Given the changes in college sports, a player for the OHL’s London Knights should be able to continue his hockey career at Boston University.”
Calla also believes that eliminating the boycott would mean DI hockey could have better players.
“NCAA hockey will be more competitive with a broader pool of players to choose from, which will help all players within NCAA hockey be NHL-ready.
The best of Sportico.com
