Proposed Lawsuit Against NCAA Poses Challenges for Hockey Players

In a significant move from Buffalo, New York, a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed against the NCAA by Rylan Masterson, a former hockey player, claiming the organization violates antitrust laws. This lawsuit is based on the assertion that the NCAA’s current rules keep players who have participated in Canadian Hockey League (CHL) games from competing in NCAA hockey, limiting their career options.

The lawsuit was filed on August 12 in the U.S. District Court of Western New York and names multiple institutions, including Canisius University, Boston College, and the University of Notre Dame. Masterson played two games for the CHL’s Windsor Spitfires at just 16 years old, which he now argues has barred him from future NCAA competition. Any player who has played in either the CHL or NCAA since August 12, 2020, is eligible to join this suit.

According to Masterson’s attorney, Stephen Lagos, the NCAA’s ban has significantly obstructed young players from making choices about their careers. “We’re optimistic this lawsuit will end the NCAA’s unfair and illegal practice and compensate players for the harm caused,” he said.

While the NCAA did not respond to requests for comment, some of the named teams also refrained from discussing the lawsuit. Canisius University confirmed they are aware of the filing but noted they haven’t been served yet. The lawsuit is just one of many recent challenges to the NCAA’s long-standing policies regarding athlete compensation.

Historically, the NCAA has emphasized amateurism, a principle they claim justifies their strict policies. However, the lawsuit points out that such restrictions might primarily aim to undermine the CHL, which competes for top young players. The filed claim states that this practice constitutes a “group boycott,” which could be illegal under U.S. antitrust laws.

This legal action comes as the NCAA has been under increasing pressure to change its business practices. A major settlement earlier this year indicated that institutions could be allowed to pay their athletes more than $20 million collectively starting in 2025. This situation opens up new discussions about how the NCAA defines amateurism and its implications for college sports.

The lawsuit also highlights that other NCAA athletes in different sports can earn money while maintaining their eligibility, contrasting sharply with the situation for hockey players. This inconsistency raises questions about the fairness of the NCAA’s current structure and whether the ban on CHL players can stand.

As the legal landscape surrounding college sports continues to evolve, the outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications not only for hockey players but also for the NCAA itself. Time will tell how this will impact future generations of athletes.