Elaine Briseño
February 23, 2026
Canada's Olympic Body Joins NHL, CHL Antitrust Defense

4 min
AI-made summary
- • Canadian hockey officials urged the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal by junior players alleging antitrust violations by the NHL and its affiliates. • Officials argued that geographic recruiting rules benefit communities, foster competition, and sustain a unique junior hockey system in Canada. • Plaintiffs claim the rules restrict players' ability to seek higher wages and violate U.S
- antitrust laws, naming the NHL, CHL, and junior teams as defendants. • A U.S
- District Judge previously dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting most conduct occurred in Canada and only nine of 60 teams are U.S.-based. • The case is World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division et al
- v
- National Hockey League et al., case number 25-3929, in the Ninth Circuit.
Canadian hockey officials asked the Ninth Circuit to reject an appeal from junior players who sued the National Hockey League and its pipeline organizations over alleged antitrust violations, arguing certain rules actually benefit the community and foster competition.
Allowing U.S. courts to apply American antitrust laws to Canadian hockey clubs would undermine Canada's youth development system and threaten major junior hockey for many communities, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Hockey Canada, which is the governing body for amateur hockey in the country, said in a Tuesday amicus brief. The league's recruiting rules, the organizations said, have helped sustain a unique product.
"Instead of paying on average several thousand dollars a year for their children to participate in 'pay to play' junior leagues, parents of major junior hockey players pay nothing, and their children earn scholarships to fund college studies when they become adults," the organizations said. "The rules challenged by plaintiffs also benefit consumers by creating a unique entertainment product that provides enjoyment to fans in small towns and larger cities spread across Canada."
Junior players Tanner Gould and Isaiah DiLaura, the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division and the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions USA Corp. argued in their January 2025 lawsuit that geographic recruiting restrictions for junior players in developmental leagues prevent them from shopping their talent to other teams where they could earn higher wages, in violation of antitrust laws.
The lawsuit named the NHL, the junior hockey teams and the Canadian Hockey League, an amateur developmental league for players ages 16 to 20 that acts as an umbrella organization for the junior hockey teams.
However, the Canadian Olympic Committee and Hockey Canada argued that the challenged geographic player eligibility rules provide the junior teams with a good mix of younger, older and foreign players to ensure one team is not always dominant. Over the last quarter century, 17 different teams have won the national championship because of the eligibility rules, according to the brief.
"Many of Canada's most memorable moments in international hockey may not have occurred without Canada's youth development leagues," the brief said.
The junior development hockey leagues serve as pipelines to the NHL and are divided into three "exclusive" geographic recruiting territories — Western, Eastern and Central regions. Players can be drafted only by teams that are within the boundaries of the exclusive territory in which they reside.
"The draft ensures that small market teams may sign talent that allows them to compete with larger market teams," the brief said.
The organizations said Washington U.S. District Judge Tana Lin was correct when she dismissed the hockey players' antitrust lawsuit on May 27 for lack of personal jurisdiction over the NHL, the CHL and the teams and clubs in Canada. The majority of conduct addressed in the lawsuit occurred in Canada, Judge Lin said. Only nine of the 60 hockey clubs in the junior leagues are based in the United States.
The plaintiffs argued in their Nov. 12 opening brief to the Ninth Circuit that federal courts have jurisdiction over federal antitrust claims and that the defendants NHL and its junior leagues have deliberately restrained competition for elite hockey talent across North America, not just in Canada.
Although the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act limited the Sherman Act's broad reach, it does not prohibit its reach in this situation, contrary to the lower court's analysis, the brief said. The antitrust restraints challenged in the lawsuit are "inextricably bound" by the defendants' restraint on domestic and import commerce, which is not covered by the FTAIA, the players said.
The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
Hockey Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee are represented by Michael K. Vaska and Graham Fulton of Foster Garvey PC.
The unions and the players are represented by Jeffrey Shinder, Ethan Litwin, J. Wyatt Fore and Tyler Ross of Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP, Michael Rubin, Stacey Leyton and Bronwen O'Herin of Altshuler Berzon LLP, Eric Citron and Lindsey Powell of Zimmer Citron & Clarke LLP, and James Martin, Jennifer Duncan Hackett and Sarah Van Culin of Zelle LLP.
The NHL is represented by Andrew G. Gordon of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.
The CHL and the junior leagues are represented by Lauren Willard Zehmer, Derek Ludwin, Sarah E. Harrington, Benjamin C. Block, Jacqueline M. Fitch and Alexander J. Cave of Covington & Burling LLP.
The case is World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division et al. v. National Hockey League et al., case number 25-3929, in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit.
Article Author
Elaine Briseño
The Sponsor
