The NHL junior hockey antitrust lawsuit is a class action filed in February 2024 by a players’ union and two former junior players accusing the National Hockey League and the Canadian Hockey League of running the CHL as an unlawful cartel that suppresses teenage players’ wages and restricts their movement. A federal judge dismissed the case in May 2025 on jurisdictional and international-comity grounds, and the plaintiffs’ appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit, with the NHL and CHL having filed their answering brief on February 10, 2026.1CourtListener. World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League
Who Sued and Who Was Sued
The complaint was filed on February 14, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs are the North America division of the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions (WAIPU) and two former players: Tanner Gould, a Calgary native drafted by the WHL’s Tri-City Americans, and Isaiah DiLaura, a Minnesota goaltender drafted by the WHL’s Prince George Cougars.2ESPN. Lawsuit: Junior Hockey Violates Antitrust Law
The defendants are the NHL, the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues (the Ontario Hockey League, the Western Hockey League, and the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League), and more than 140 affiliated member clubs.3The Athletic (NYT). CHL Antitrust Lawsuit Against NHL Explained The CHL is the primary development pipeline for the NHL. Each year thousands of teenagers are drafted into one of its three leagues, live with host families, attend school, and play competitive hockey. The lawsuit set out to challenge that whole structure.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The core claim is that the CHL leagues violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, the leagues divide North America into exclusive geographic territories, run involuntary drafts of players as young as 14 or 15, and then lock those players into exclusive rights agreements for up to five years without any collective bargaining agreement in place.2ESPN. Lawsuit: Junior Hockey Violates Antitrust Law Once drafted, a player’s rights belong to the selecting team unless he is traded, and the player has no say in that trade.
Compensation is central. The suit alleged that CHL players receive no more than $250 per month in the WHL and $470 per month in the OHL, while the leagues take players’ name, image, and likeness rights without sharing any of the revenue.2ESPN. Lawsuit: Junior Hockey Violates Antitrust Law The CHL classifies its players as amateurs, which the plaintiffs said is a device to sidestep standard employment obligations.3The Athletic (NYT). CHL Antitrust Lawsuit Against NHL Explained
The NHL is cast as the “puppet master” of the arrangement. The complaint alleged that the NHL sustains the CHL through annual funding and through substantial payments, reportedly up to $175,000 per player, made to CHL teams when their alumni are selected in the NHL draft.4Forbes. Lawsuit Against NHL Brings Rare Test of Critical Sports Law Concept The plaintiffs alleged the NHL conditions that funding on the CHL keeping its restrictive practices in place, and uses an agreement that lets drafted NHL players be returned to their CHL teams instead of being paid entry-level NHL salaries.3The Athletic (NYT). CHL Antitrust Lawsuit Against NHL Explained The complaint further alleged that the American Hockey League and the East Coast Hockey League had agreed not to compete for junior players.2ESPN. Lawsuit: Junior Hockey Violates Antitrust Law
The NHL moved to dismiss in part on the non-statutory labor exemption, a court-created doctrine that shields collective bargaining agreements from antitrust challenges. The league argued the NHL-CHL agreement is incorporated into its CBA with the NHL Players Association, so the NHLPA effectively agreed to the terms affecting prospective players. The plaintiffs replied that the CBA does not actually incorporate the NHL-CHL agreement, and that the exemption cannot cover restraints imposed on athletes who are not in the NHL’s bargaining unit at all.4Forbes. Lawsuit Against NHL Brings Rare Test of Critical Sports Law Concept
Why the Case Was Dismissed
The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and assigned to Judge Tana Lin. In May 2025, Judge Lin dismissed the case on jurisdictional and international-law grounds without ruling on the labor exemption question.5Syracuse Law Review. Major Junior and Minimum Contacts: Jurisdiction Concerns Delay Hockey Antitrust Litigation
The ruling rested on three conclusions. First, many of the CHL defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Washington state to establish personal jurisdiction. Second, certain claims involved foreign commerce that fell outside the reach of the Sherman Act under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act. Third, the remaining claims were dismissed under the doctrine of international comity. Weighing factors including the nationality of the parties and the location of the alleged conduct, Judge Lin concluded the dispute was fundamentally “a Canadian, not an American issue.”5Syracuse Law Review. Major Junior and Minimum Contacts: Jurisdiction Concerns Delay Hockey Antitrust Litigation Because the NHL was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, Judge Lin stated she would not address the league’s non-statutory labor exemption argument.6Vitallaw. World Association of Icehockey Players Unions v. NHL
The Appeal Before the Ninth Circuit
The plaintiffs filed their appeal on July 1, 2025. The case was docketed as No. 25-3929 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case briefly entered the court’s mediation program and was released from mediation in August 2025. The appellants filed their opening brief on November 12, 2025, arguing that Judge Lin was wrong to decline jurisdiction over the antitrust claims.1CourtListener. World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League
The appeal has drawn outside support. In November 2025 the American Antitrust Institute filed an amicus brief arguing that the district court should have exercised jurisdiction and applied the Sherman Act to what the AAI called a transnational market-division agreement.7American Antitrust Institute. AAI Urges Ninth Circuit to Apply Sherman Act to Transnational Market Division Agreements Additional amicus briefs came from 14 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, and from the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws.1CourtListener. World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League The NHL and CHL defendants filed their answering brief on February 10, 2026, and the case remained pending as of early 2026.
What’s at Stake
If the Ninth Circuit reverses the dismissal and returns the case for proceedings on the merits, it would force a direct answer to whether U.S. antitrust law reaches the restrictions junior hockey players face, and whether the NHL’s financial ties to the CHL make it complicit in those restrictions. It would also revive the NHL’s labor-exemption defense, which the district court never reached. If the dismissal stands, the characterization of the dispute as a Canadian issue could effectively close U.S. courts as a venue for challenging the CHL system, even for American players like DiLaura who were drafted into Canadian leagues.