The morals, money, of major junior sport

In the early days of a new year, sports fans on both sides of the border shift their attention from the professional to the amateur. The world junior championships, played this week in Vancouver and Victoria, dominate the hockey world, and south of the border attention is dominated by the college football championship.

But that the shift is from professional athletes to amateur ones does not mean a shift away from commerce. Major junior hockey is a significant business in Canada, though not as massive a business enterprise as American college football. All of which raises key questions about how athletes develop and whether they are exploited.

The exploitation question gets more attention, and certainly did so in 2018. But what is best for the development of young athletes is also important, given that the vast majority do not go on to play professional sports.

A $180-million classaction lawsuit has been filed against the Canadian Hockey League — parent of the Ontario, Western and Quebec major junior leagues — seeking lost wages. The claim is that the 16- to 20-year-olds who play major junior are involved in a business and should be paid at least minimum wage. How that will proceed in the courts remains to be seen, but in November, the Ontario Hockey League commissioner asked the Ontario government for an exemption from the relevant labour laws, including minimum wages. Apparently such exemptions already exist in seven other provinces.

The CHL argues that players are “student-athletes” and are analogous to those who play for a high school or university team. Indeed, the CHL runs a scholarship program so that for every season in the league, a player gets a year of university tuition, books and fees paid.

Major junior franchises are certainly businesses. The most successful teams draw more than 5,000 fans to a game, and ticket prices are comparable to the minor professional leagues in the United States. Financial information disclosed by Ontario teams as part of the lawsuit found team revenues ranged from $1.3 million to $6.5 million. The London Knights reported a profit of $1.9 million.

So are the players studentathletes, or employees who should be paid? In American college football and basketball, the players are certainly student-athletes, yet there is still a perennial argument about whether they should be paid.

A recent HBO film, Student Athlete, produced by basketball star LeBron James, likened the current system to slavery, where the largely black athletes generate massive income for largely white colleges, and their labour is not paid. (James himself went straight from high school to the NBA, skipping college altogether.)

The response there is straightforward. Players get admitted to university on a preferential basis (most would not otherwise meet the minimum academic admission requirements) and are given generous scholarships. For many it is a free university education, enhancing their life prospects far beyond what would have been available to them absent college sports.

It is true that American universities are not legally businesses in the same way that CHL franchises are, but they operate on a much more commercial basis. In most states, the highest paid public employee is the head football or basketball coach.

The CHL players have a better argument for cash compensation. The scholarships they receive are a future and potential benefit that they may not realize, especially for those who do go on to play professionally. American university players are being “paid” as they play. Indeed, being injured or being cut from the team often means the end of the athletic scholarship — that it is “compensation” is thus quite clear.

STUDENTATHLETES, OR EMPLOYEES WHO SHOULD BE PAID?

A broader question relates to how athletes should develop. The American collegiate system puts pressure on promising athletes to stay in high school and go to university, as sports is associated with school. In Canada, that remains true for football, but not so for hockey, where the link between sports and school has been broken.

That does mean that university athletics in Canada is more academically pure; athletes are not granted admission at lower academic standards. The trade-off is that many promising Canadian hockey players are actually drawn away from university, or even high school, as their athletic status does not depend upon enrolment. The future scholarship program provides an incentive, but does not mandate postsecondary education.

For those players who do not go on to the professional leagues, that is not an insignificant matter. Linking athletic excellence to academic advancement does not mean exploitation is not possible, but it does leave the “student athlete” better off once he ceases to be an athlete.

The majority of those who entertain us this week will not being doing so for long. We move on to the next cohort. Where do they move on to?