Are the CHL junior leagues about to have to pay players?

[OccamsRazor]

The Ontario government will decide within a few weeks whether to form a task force to examine working conditions for players in the Ontario Hockey League, said the president of Canada's largest private-sector union.

 

http://www.tsn.ca/chl/story/?id=458272

 

The Ontario government will decide within a few weeks whether to form a task force to examine working conditions for players in the Ontario Hockey League, said the president of Canada's largest private-sector union.

Jerry Dias, the president of Unifor, met for an hour on Tuesday afternoon at Queen's Park with the provincial labour and sports ministers.

Dias called the talks "extremely positive" and said he pressed his argument that junior hockey has flourished as an industry and its players deserve to share a bigger piece of the profits.

Dias said Unifor is involved with the effort partially because it would help its public image.  He said the union would work pro bono for players or charge them a symbolic fee, perhaps $1 per month.

Canadian Hockey League commissioner David Branch has said players don't receive more than modest stipends because they are considered student athletes.  Many of the 1,300 mostly-teenaged players in the CHL qualify for educational scholarship packages, he said.

Branch did not immediately respond to phone or text messages.

Also Tuesday, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania governor's office said the state's labour laws offer an exemption from minimum wage laws for employees who work in entertainment and recreational jobs.

"We are unaware of any authority specifically applying the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act to athletes," said Sara Goulet, the spokeswoman. "However, even if they could be viewed as employees, both state and federal law contains minimum wage/overtime exemptions for public amusement and recreational establishments that operate on a seasonal basis. This exemption has been invoked in law suits by non-athlete employees against professional sports teams, with varying results depending on the teams' length of operations and revenues during the course of the year."

Still, Goulet said players for the Eric Otters - the only CHL team in her state - may qualify as child labour.  If they do, a number of different statutes might apply to their employment.

Award-winning journalist Rick Westhead is TSN's Senior Correspondent for TSN's platforms - TSN, TSN Radio, TSN.ca and TSN GO.
 
He has covered a wide variety of sports issues for a slate of leading publications, among them the Toronto Star, Bloomberg News, Canadian Press, Globe and Mail, New York Times, and Saturday Night Magazine. Earlier this year, Westhead was part of a team that won the prestigious Project of the Year at the National Newspaper Awards. He was also honoured with the Toronto Star's Reporter of the Year Award in 2007.

[OccamsRazor]

Looks like they are facing the same issues that college football is facing now.....it's like it no longer is enough to get an education it's all about getting paid....troubled times ahead i think.

[flyercanuck]

CHL players already get paid. Each player is given a "cost of living" allowance as well as free room and board at a billets residence.

[OccamsRazor]

CHL players already get paid. Each player is given a "cost of living" allowance as well as free room and board at a billets residence.

 

 

But it sounds to me it's like they want more and aren't being given their fair cut of the pie.....like what college football is going through, and also what is the reason there is no NCAA college football coming out this season kids want to get paid for their likeness in the video game.

 

So i imagine more of the same is coming for the hockey game versions how they have the minor leagues and what not on there too.

 

Everyone wants to get a slice of the billions being made every year and i understand both sides.

 

This is just the tip of the ice berg we are seeing appear more will follow.

[flyercanuck]

@OccamsRazor

 

 You get to play with and against your peers for a franchise who pays for your development, equipment, travel etc to help you with your goal of making the NHL. For every year you play your are eligible for a year of college at the leagues expense. You also get an allowance so you can have some "going out" money. What more do you want? The goal isn't junior, it's either pro hockey or free schooling while you play. Check and check.

 

 Plus if they want more money, guess who's pocket that's coming out of? Not the owners, that's for sure.

[EDI-Flyer]

But it sounds to me it's like they want more and aren't being given their fair cut of the pie.....like what college football is going through, and also what is the reason there is no NCAA college football coming out this season kids want to get paid for their likeness in the video game.

 

Not quite sure that this is being driven by players... an earlier attempt to unionise the CHL crashed and burned because there wasn't a great deal of interest. Don't get me wrong, the league is making some real money but at the end of the day no one forces the kids to play in the CHL..

 

To me this is more about the union trying to build up membership. And you can forget the BS about it being a nominal fee, they will soon get their hooks in for more dough.

[OccamsRazor]

What more do you want?

 

What everyone wants...MORE!!!

 

I'm not saying it's ok or a good thing but once someone puts into some of these kids they're being exploited kind of it's all it takes...you gotta remember there are many who want even make it to the AHL.

 

So guys are trying to make as much as they can. Same reason these guys are pursuing more in the college ranks.

 

Greed is universal.

[flyercanuck]

@OccamsRazor

 

 OK, so they start paying juniors to play, then what? Select teams want to get paid? House league players start demanding NTCs and signing bonuses?

[jammer2]

  I've read a bit on this guys. This is what I understand to this point.....

 

  The big reason players want to play in the CHL (besides the obvious spring board to the NHL) is the free tuition ie University education that is thrown in for every player. You have to remember, only approx 10% of these guys go on to be pro hockey players....so this fall back plan is HUGE for the non-stars.

 

  There is however, a big catch to this university education....you *must* start attending school within 18 months of graduation. This puts many players in no man's land, forced to choose between the AHL and a possible career or the free schooling. Unifor is saying this....if the players earned it, why does it have strings attached. It should be theirs whenever the choose.

 

  The other thing...UNIFOR is proposing that the money scheduled to go for education can be paid up front in installments if the player wishes. This is BAD for most kids, cause they will party the money away (not many are mature and responsible at this age)....a lot will piss away their future education....which would be sad.

[OccamsRazor]

@OccamsRazor

 

 OK, so they start paying juniors to play, then what? Select teams want to get paid? House league players start demanding NTCs and signing bonuses?

 

 

Oh i think it's a bad idea and it's opening a can of worms we don't won't to open. To me then schools will have to turn around and jack up prices on educations they were getting for free then. I don't want to see it changed. I liked everything just the way it was.

 

Even in college football they need to remain amateurs and focus on their educations as well because honestly only few make it and they need to prepare for life after sports. 

[OccamsRazor]

There is however, a big catch to this university education....you *must* start attending school within 18 months of graduation.

 

This is where they get their idea form and it is about to impact sports as a whole a we know it.....not sure how this will impact Canada.....

 

Judge rules against NCAA on compensation

 

(CNN) -- A federal judge Friday ruled in favor of a former UCLA college basketball star who sued to end the NCAA's control over the rights to college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken sided withEd O'Bannon in his lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. O'Bannon argued athletes in the top tier of college basketball and football should be allowed to profit from their schools' use of their likenesses.

In a 99-page ruling, Wilken wrote that current NCAA rules "unreasonably restrain trade in the market for certain educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools."

Wilken issued an injunction to block the NCAA from prohibiting its member schools and conferences from offering their Football Bowl Subdivision or Division I basketball recruits a limited share of the revenues generated from the use of their names, images, and likenesses.

She did rule, however, that the NCAA could set a cap on the money paid to athletes, as long as it allows at least $5,000 per athlete per year.

"The NCAA's witnesses stated that their concerns about student-athlete compensation would be minimized or negated if compensation was capped at a few thousand dollars per year," the judge wrote.

O'Bannon's suit alleged the waivers the athletes are required to sign are illegal and asked that players be able to collectively negotiate the terms of their likenesses in order to keep a share of those profits.

"Before the court in this case is only whether the NCAA violates antitrust law by agreeing with its member schools to restrain their ability to compensate Division I men's basketball and FBS football players any more than the current association rules allow," Wilken wrote. "For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that this restraint does violate antitrust law."

The ruling could potentially change college sports drastically, eventually forcing the NCAA to restructure its amateur model and allow college athletes to be paid.

NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said: "We disagree with the court's decision that NCAA rules violate antitrust laws. We note that the court's decision sets limits on compensation, but are reviewing the full decision and will provide further comment later."

William Isaacson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, called the ruling "a big step forward for common decency."

"One of the things the judge is saying here ... is some sharing is OK," he said. "It won't affect amateurism, won't affect the popularity of the sport. She made a very reasonable and significant and measured decision."

The judge wrote that the injunction shall not affect student-athletes who enroll in college before July 1, 2016.

When athletes commit to a university, players are required to sign a waiver that relinquishes their right to their own likenesses in every form.

That means they can't make money off their television appearances, their jerseys, or in any other way.

The universities get any revenues from selling sports paraphernalia or other material related to the players.

The trial began June 9 in federal court in Oakland, California. The plaintiffs were 20 current and former student athletes who play or played for an FBS football or Division I men's basketball team starting in 1956.

Legal appeals could delay a final outcome for years but the decision is in a position to be the first major NCAA reform effort to take hold.

Already the issues brought up in the case have had an effect, even before the ruling was made.

Texas A&M, Arizona and Northwestern universities have decided to stop selling jerseys with the numbers of specific players.

Instead, Texas A&M will sell the number 12 jersey, in keeping with its 12th man tradition; and Arizona will sell jerseys with numbers that correspond to the year of competition -- 14 for this year, according to a school spokesman. Northwestern will sell only jersey number 51, in honor of its head coach, Pat Fitzgerald, and legendary Chicago linebacker Dick Butkus.

The NCAA's argument in both the ongoing O'Bannon suit and another one filed by former quarterback Sam Keller, also in federal court in Oakland, is that it is trying to protect the amateur model of college sports.

Paying college athletes would hurt traditions, NCAA chief testifies

NCAA under fire: 5 things to know

NCAA faces change, legal challenges in months ahead

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/sport/ncaa-student-athletes/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

We'll see.

 

This has more to do with video games and getting paid for their likeness but it's part of it and they won't stop there....

Edited August 9, 2014 by OccamsRazor