Written By: Jed Raby
It is no secret the emergence of name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) has sent a shockwave throughout the sports world. In turn, it has put a strain on the relationships between the governing entities at each level of athletic development. Historically, North American sports have followed the traditional path mirroring academic progression: high school to college to professional. However, hockey has long been an outlier. At a young age, players are pushed through a professional model consisting of entry drafts, contracts, and extended seasons. In December 2024, a collection of unions and players challenged this system in federal court. The plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the Canadian Hockey League (“CHL”) and National Hockey League (“NHL”) claiming the leagues’ draft practices and player agreements violate federal antitrust regulations.
Junior hockey refers to the wide range of developmental leagues in the U.S. and Canada where players aged sixteen to twenty hone their skills to achieve collegiate and professional aspirations. Historically, talented young players could pursue one of two distinct avenues. Between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, players had to decide: surrender their amateur status by playing “major junior” hockey in the CHL or maintain their eligibility by competing in Junior A leagues like the United States Hockey League. Currently, the NIL revolution has caused these paths to merge. Now, players can compete in major junior and jump to college hockey without eligibility impediments. Nonetheless, the CHL remains the premier developmental league for the NHL, consistently supplying the most draft picks. In fact, the three current leading scorers in the NHL are CHL products (Connor McDavid, Erie Otters; Nathan MacKinnon, Halifax Mooseheads; Nikita Kucherov, Rouyn-Noranda Huskies).
The CHL is not a prototypical sports league with its own array of franchises. Instead, it operates as an umbrella over three independent major junior leagues. The leagues span across Canada and the northern United States, each comprised of roughly twenty teams. The Western Hockey League (“WHL”) encompasses teams from western Canadian provinces, Washington, and Oregon. The Ontario Hockey League (“OHL”) is made up of teams from Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Lastly, the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League (“QMJHL”) includes teams from eastern Canadian provinces such as Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia. Teams play nearly seventy regular season games and compete for their league’s championship. The winners then collide for a round-robin tournament to determine the overall champion of the CHL.
Major junior rosters contain players from all over the world. For international players, the CHL conducts a two-round “import draft” where teams from all three leagues select players from one pool. The draft process for North American players is quite different. Each league conducts its own draft where teams are confined to selecting players from an exclusive regional pool. Largely, these regions are split corresponding to the league’s location in Canada. For example, a player from New York can only be drafted into the OHL, a player from California into the WHL, and a player from Massachusetts into the QMJHL. The plaintiffs claim this amounts to a blatant horizontal restraint on the market because the leagues have agreed not to compete for players originating outside their prescribed draft territory.
Upon being drafted, players selected to major junior rosters are offered a non-negotiable Standard Player Agreement (“SPA”). The plaintiffs allege the SPA suppresses players’ wages far below amounts they would receive in a competitive market. It provides a monthly stipend of roughly $250-$500, while players on NHL farm teams like the Syracuse Crunch earn wages upwards of $5,000 per month. Further, players must concede all NIL rights to their team under the agreement. The plaintiffs assert these practices amount to price fixing accomplished through league collusion without collective bargaining.
However, most CHL draft picks are cut or opt to play in the Junior A ranks. These players fall onto their draft team’s “protected list.” The plaintiffs allege this functions as a “de facto reserve system” because it forbids other teams from recruiting or negotiating with protected players. This effectively leashes the player to the team who drafted him for the entirety of his junior career unless a prospective franchise wants to fork over a six-figure sum for the player’s rights.
The CHL serves as the main pipeline for NHL talent. This mutually beneficial relationship has precipitated agreements that limit the mobility of young North American hockey players. Generally, players are drafted into the NHL when they are seventeen or eighteen years old. However, only two percent of NHL draft picks are selected to NHL rosters in their first year. This requires most drafted players to continue their growth in lower tier leagues. Under the current arrangement, North American CHL players drafted into the NHL are prohibited from competing for NHL-affiliate franchises until they are twenty-one. They must return to major junior and forgo the higher wages and better competition available in the NHL farm system. This does not apply to international NHL draft picks. The plaintiffs allege this agreement furthers the conspiracy and compounds the defendants’ anticompetitive and price fixing practices.
Facially, the actions of the CHL and NHL appear to violate § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The defendants’ conduct surrounding draft processes, player agreements, and NIL has significant anticompetitive effects in the relevant market; all achieved without the benefit of collective bargaining and player representation. However, courts have yet to reach the antitrust issues as the cross-border nature of the dispute has presented jurisdictional roadblocks. In May 2025, the Western District of Washington dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction. The court held many defendants could not establish sufficient availment and minimum contacts with the state of Washington. Further, the court found other claims involved “foreign commerce” outside the reach of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Those remaining were dismissed under the doctrine of international comity. The court weighed various factors such as location, nationality of the parties, and forum adequacy and determined its abstention was the proper recourse. Put simply, the court found the case to be a Canadian, not an American issue.
Currently, the case is awaiting judgment from the Ninth Circuit on the jurisdictional issues. Fifteen state attorneys general have filed a joint amici brief pleading to reverse its dismissal. They criticize the district court’s “forum-specific focus” arguing it allows defendants to direct anticompetitive effects towards all fifty states but escape federal liability based on insufficient personal jurisdiction in each individual state. Yet district court Judge Tara Lin noted the claims “give the Court pause” and acknowledged the U.S. interest “in the treatment of Major Junior hockey players recruited from and playing in the United States.”
Debates surrounding the distinction between “amateur” athletes and “employees” persist. The NCAA has long regarded CHL players as professionals, erecting a blockade between college hockey and major junior. The arrival of NIL has sunk that blockade. So far, the CHL has been protected from federal antitrust liability as it is the Canadian Hockey League. However, the nexus between the CHL and the United States, its professional leagues, and its players in tandem with the novel ability for players to move freely between major junior and college illuminate the inseparable nature of this issue. In the coming months, the Ninth Circuit will hand down its jurisdictional decision. If the panel is persuaded by the plaintiffs, a momentous change to the hockey world could be on the horizon.
Sources:
About the CHL, Canadian Hockey League, https://chl.ca/aboutthechl/.
About Junior Hockey, Neutral Zone, https://neutralzone.com/about-junior-hockey/.
About the OHL, Ont. Hockey League, https://chl.ca/ohl/about-the-ontario-hockey-league/.
About the WHL, W. Hockey League, https://chl.ca/whl/about/.
Antitrust Resource Manual 1: Attorney General’s Policy Statement, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Nov. 2017), https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/antitrust-resource-manual-1-attorney-generals-policy-statement.
Brief of State of Washington, et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants, World Ass’n of Icehockey Players Unions N. Am. Div. v. Nat’l Hockey League, No. 25-3929 (9th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025), https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/11.19.25%20States%27%20amicus%20brief.pdf.
CHL Players to be Eligible to Play NCAA Hockey Beginning in 2025-26, Nat’l Hockey League (Nov. 7, 2024), https://www.nhl.com/news/chl-players-to-be-eligible-to-play-ncaa-hockey-beginning-in-2025-26.
NHL Secures Dismissal of Antitrust Action, Paul, Weiss LLP (May 23, 2025), https://www.paulweiss.com/insights/client-news/nhl-secures-dismissal-of-antitrust-class-action.
NHL Stats, Nat’l Hockey League, https://www.nhl.com/stats/.
Press Release, Cal. Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Att’y Gen., Trouble on the Ice: Attorney General Bonta Throws Support Behind Hockey Players in Antitrust Case (Nov. 19, 2025), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/trouble-ice-attorney-general-bonta-throws-support-behind-hockey-players.
QMJHL, The Hockey Review, https://www.thehockeyreview.com/Canadian%20Leagues/QMJHL?leagueid=9.
Rick Westhead, For Second Time, U.S. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Seeking End of Major Junior Hockey Draft, TSN (May 26, 2025), https://www.tsn.ca/chl/westhead-for-second-time-u-s-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-seeking-end-of-major-junior-hockey-draft-1.2312407.
Sergey Pryakhin, Quinn Allen, CHL Remains NHL’s Top Pipeline as OHL Dominates, QMJHL Declines, Research Ground (Sept. 17, 2025), https://rg.org/en-ca/research/sports-data-analysis/chl-remain-nhl-top-pipeline-ohl-dominate-qmjhl-decline.
Sherman Antitrust Act § 1, 18 U.S.C. § 1 (2018).
World Ass’n of Icehockey Players Unions N. Am. Div. et al. v. Nat’l Hockey League et al., 803 F.Supp.3d 1136 (W.D. Wash. 2025).