More Hockey: Replacement Players and the Stanley Cup?

The cancellation of the hockey season has people talking about two key legal issues. The first is replacement players. Admittedly, I do not even begin to know everything about the myriad of labor laws covering Canada, the US, and their provinces and states. However, based on what I have read, it appears that most every team would be able to hire replacement players. The exceptions could be the Montreal Canadians and Vancouver Canucks, as labor laws in Quebec and British Columbia prevent the hiring of replacement workers. However, many labor lawyers in Vancouver believe that the BC law may not apply to the Canucks because the union at issue is not organized locally, but rather in Ontario. Thus, the prohibition may not apply. In addition, the teams have considered hosting their "home" games in other provinces, which could also allow them to avoid the law. The only other issue for teams seem to be the laws, in both Canada and the United States, which prevents the hiring of foreign-nationals to take the place of striking workers. This could mean that the replacements could be only Canadian and American, respectively.

This leads directly into the next issue: should the league even consider replacements? The NFL had a dismal experience with replacement players in 1987. Few fans came to the replacement games, those that did come booed the players, and many of the replacements were thereafter shunned by the members of the union. Many commentators have predicted an even more violent fan backlash to replacement hockey than to no hockey at all. At least during the lock-out, there is no bad hockey to remind fans of what could be.

There is, however, real hockey going on in North America. The American Hockey League continues to play its schedule, and now a movement has begun to award the Stanley Cup to the winner of the AHL championship. As a reminder, it is only be tradition that Lord Stanley's Cup is awarded to the NHL champion each year. In fact, the Stanley Cup was first awarded in 1893, long before the NHL began play in 1917. The Cup is not the property of the NHL or to the Tampa Bay Lightning, the last team to win it.

According to a legal opinion received by Free Stanley, an Edmonton-based organization, Lord Stanley bequeathed his Cup to trustees, who are to ensure that it is awarded to the team winning a hockey challenge each year. According to the Hockey Hall of Fame, the current trustees, Brian O'Neill and Ian Morrison, have "absolute power over all matters regarding the Stanley Cup."

So, perhaps the Stanley Cup should be awarded this year. As Anil Adyanthaya writes, "awarding the Cup in 2005 will mean that the game of hockey itself transcends the monetary issues that divide the NHL." That seems like a good idea to me.

Posted in: