The NHL next Friday requested a judge in the Southern District of New York to dismiss a case that could endanger the person development sector. Last Friday, the NHL filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing the NHL of depriving young hockey players of their market value as “implausible” and “factually unsubstantiated.”
Two former major junior hockey players ( Isaiah DiLaura and Tanner Gould ) filed a lawsuit against the NHL and the Canadian Hockey League ( which are divided into the OHL, QMJHL, and WHL ) for allegedly conspiring to impose a cap on players ‘ earnings in February. Through an agreement with the CHL, the NHL is depicted as supporting a system that protects league profits at the expense of the earnings of young players. The major junior leagues, for example, enjoy exclusive territorial rights to recruit and sign players, thus reducing how those leagues compete in the labor market.

In multiple ways, the NHL’s motion to dismiss tries to persuade U. S. District Judge Margaret Garnett that the lawsuit is deficient.
For starters, the NHL asserts the plaintiffs are “patently incorrect” about key facts. The NHL claims that it “does not require the CHL to maintain any of the specific rules at issue in this case” despite the complaint’s claim that the league makes “annual payments” contingent on junior leagues upholding allegedly anticompetitive rules. The NHL instead financially supports player development, such as through contributing to players ‘ tuition, education, concussion protocols and mental health training.
The NHL also has objections against the plaintiffs, who claim that the NHL-CHL agreement requires them to pay major junior clubs for 18 or 19-year-old players who have been drafted and signed to NHL contracts. The league claims that the NHL only pays if a player who has been drafted and signed is actually a member of an NHL team.
As a defense, the NHL uses the labor relationship between players and players. The NHL- NHLPA collective bargaining agreement, which states that the NHLPA is the exclusive bargaining representative of” all present and future players in the NHL,” includes the NHL- CHL agreement. The NHL emphasizes the non-statutory labor exemption, which is a result of a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that hold that when management and labor collectively bargain pay, wages, and other employment conditions, those conditions are exempt from antitrust scrutiny.
The exemption applies to the rules in this case, as the NHL would have it. Even though junior hockey players are n’t NHLPA members, that is true. The NHL relies on case precedent to argue that the exception does not “apply to the claims of prospective players who have not been drafted and may never be drafted.”
The league references NHLPA v. Plymouth Whalers, a case from 2005 involving a challenge to OHL eligibility rules limiting the number of “over- age” or 20- year- old hockey players. The non-statutory labor exemption was applied because the underlying legal dispute between the Plymouth Whalers and the NCAA was triggered when players who were drafted by NHL teams could become free agents. The exemption should apply to this situation as well, the NHL contends because the current plaintiffs are contesting annual payments made to the development of junior hockey players, some of whom are future NHL players, and are contesting other aspects of potential NHL employment.

The league, represented by the law firm Paul, Weiss, also insists that much of the plaintiffs ‘ case concerns matters unrelated to the NHL or its CHL dealings. For instance, the NHL says nothing in its CHL agreement is relevant to the issue of whether or not exclusive geographic areas for CHL leagues are a matter of concern. Likewise, while the plaintiffs contend the CHL’s draft is anticompetitive, the NHL maintains” no term of the NHL- CHL Agreement relates to the CHL Defendants ‘ draft processes”.
In addition, the NHL references a defense that the CHL emphasizes in its own motion to dismiss. The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA ) restricts the scope of American antitrust law to safeguard both American citizens and exporters. According to the NHL and CHL, FTAIA disqualifies the plaintiffs ‘ claims because “none of the allegedly anticompetitive effects of the NHL’s conduct in the United States” would have contributed to the plaintiffs ‘ injuries, which were” suffered in Canada.”
To that point, the NHL stresses that DiLaura “only played for Canadian teams” during the relevant period. According to Gould, the NHL claims he played “at most” one season in the United States, and the complaint” contains no factual allegations showing how the NHL’s conduct caused DiLaura any alleged injury in the United States.”
In upcoming Garnett memorandums, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to refute these assertions.