This is one of many investigative pieces that is to come with Hockey Canada, and many of them will be centered around the report that Justice Thomas Cromwell, a former New Brunswick judge, has conducted, and much of it is an indictment of Hockey Canada's practices. He was called in 2022 to conduct a report on Hockey Canada's business practices as the 2018 World Juniors sexual assault allegations resurfaced, and I will get to that in a separate article.
There is no doubt that within Hockey Canada, there is a large monster called corporate capture that we are dealing with, and I could never cover the Thomas Cromwell report in just one article, so it will be a series of publications. This isn't just an offseason project, this is something that needs far more discussion that it gets. This report was written nearly 2 years ago, and after a brief acknowledgement, the media buried it very quickly. That won't be the case here, as I am aiming to break this case open, because after hearing some of the stories that are coming out, I decided I didn't like the direction that this sport or its culture is going in, and that it's time somebody shook things up for the better. Canada's national embarrassment is enough at the hockey stage as it is, from Alan Eagleson defrauding NHL players and exploiting the Canada Cups for personal gain to this, it's no secret we are a joke. Hockey Canada used to be looked upon as the exemplary governing board in sport, but over the years, it has been too heavily reliant on its lack of fierce competition, and this has led to them neglecting areas that require serious improvement. USA Hockey is growing faster and getting stronger, and with a Florida based team making the Finals 5 years running, we may start seeing American hockey players from areas we haven't seen much of before. Not only that, but Hockey Canada isn't as good at serving the CHL as a pipeline as it used to be, with more Canadians seeking the NCAA route after 2 years of Junior A. This is a critique piece on Hockey Canada, but I want it known that I don't want them to be eliminated as an institution, but what I do want is for them to be seeking reform, and to get with the times so that they can go back to serving their designated purpose, which is to govern the sport of hockey. Before I go too heavily into detail, it is important to get to know what me and a few of my friends from this case are dealing with.
Thomas Cromwell introduces Hockey Canada as a not-for-profit corporation that is supposed to be governed by the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, SC 2009, c 23 (CNCA). They are also a Registered Canadian Amateur Athletics Association, which is a designation under the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp). They were created in 1914 as the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA), and they were designed to oversee amateur hockey at a national level, with professional hockey still being a new thing. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) began sponsoring local tournaments in 1930. In the 1950s, Team Canada lost in the 1954 World Hockey Championships and in the 1956 Olympics, and there was a common belief that the Soviet Union had beaten them at their own game, and they lost in the 1960 Olympics at Squaw Valley again. The year after, Bill C-131 was passed to encourage, promote, and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada, and this saw the federal government begin to provide funding to volunteer driven national sports organizations. This allowed for the Ministry of National Health and Welfare to make grants to any agency, organization, or institution that was enabling fitness or amateur sport. In the 1960s, there wasn't much pride in the national team, and financing them was still an obstacle. They took to corporate donations and government grants through the CAHA, and from the revenues brought in by games that the National Team participated in. Hockey Canada was created in 1969 for the purpose of managing and financing the national teams of Canada. 2 years later, the federal government split their Fitness and Amateur Sport Program into 2 divisions: Recreation Canada and Sport Canada, with Sport Canada being tasked with developing the higher competitive levels. On May 1, 1981, they incorporated under the name Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and in 1998 merged with Hockey Canada into one large organization.
Their mission statement is to "Lead, Develop and Promote Positive Hockey Experiences", and to be "World Sport Leaders". They state that they believe in a positive hockey experience for all participants, in a safe, sportsmanlike environment, the development of life skills which will benefit participants throughout their lives, and the values of fair play and sportsmanship, including the development of respect for all people by all participants. Their other supposed values are to provide equal opportunities for everyone indiscriminately, the development of dignity and self-esteem, instilling honesty and integrity in participants, the promotion of teamwork, the representation of the proud tradition of Canada, the value of hard work, determination, and the pursuit of excellence, and the benefits of personal and physical well-being.
As for the governing purposes of Hockey Canada as a regulatory body, they are supposed to regulate and promote amateur hockey in Canada and establish rules, oversee a structure of Clubs, Associations, Leagues and Teams, deliver a training program to help national and international levels, manage the national teams that participate in international competition, stage and sanction competitions, act as a Canadian representative on the IIHF, and carry out fundraising activities and redistribute funds for local Clubs.
Their operations deal with all aspects of "organized hockey". Cromwell understands that the 4 categories of operations are regulating amateur hockey in Canada, growing and developing the game, representing Canada on the world stage, and business development. The regulation aspect appears to be flawed as it relates to the enforcement of rules, as Cromwell explains that they do not enforce compliance of the rules on Members as well as they should. Members are defined as associations/federations that manage amateur hockey in their respective regions. Some representatives of the Board have have indicated that enforcement does not occur, and this can be attributed to practical difficulties related to enforcement. Some Members themselves believe that Hockey Canada is simply one layer in a more complex structure, where each association is its own entity, and therefore Hockey Canada cannot effectively govern at the more local levels, and that creates too many inconsistencies in how the game is delivered to Canadians at all levels.
When it comes to growing and developing the game, some Members have expressed that Hockey Canada has become too focused on high performance athletes, to a point where they are losing touch with some of the more grassroots levels. A counter-argument for why they focus on higher performance athletes, however, may be that the revenue from those high performance tournaments, such as IIHF tournaments and other amateur tournaments, respond to the financial needs of Hockey Canada due to a lack of government funding in certain areas. A lot of their tournaments are heavily sponsored, with companies like Esso and Telus having their names on a couple trophies.
As for the business side, which is more of where my interest lies with this, their sponsorships and licensing partnerships earn them a significant amount of money. They operate hand in hand with the Hockey Canada Foundation, a registered charity that "provides secure, sustainable, long-term funding to support the future development of the game." The documents I have access to do not provide a review of the Hockey Canada Foundation, but that is something I will eventually look into. For the 2020-21 fiscal year, Hockey Canada reported total revenues of
61 902 000 CA$, of which 20 138 000 $ came from marketing, 5 653 000 $ came from government grants, and revenue from camps and national teams totaled
3 400 000 $. Due to recent scandalous allegations that surfaced 2 years ago, many sponsors, such as Bauer, Nike, Canadian Tire, Tim Hortons, Scotiabank, Telus, Chevrolet Canada, Sobeys, and Esso have tried to distance themselves from Hockey Canada, by reducing sponsorships or simply cutting ties all together. Their National Equity Fund totals 119 120 000 $ as of June 30, 2021.
Marketing revenues, video content sales, championship photo sales, broadcast rights, licensing rights, and merchandising revenue represented 21-36% of revenues. International revenues represented as little as 3%, and as much as 37% of annual revenue. Insurance premiums represent 10-23% of annual revenues, and government grants represent between 7% and 12% of revenues. Administration and human resources represented 23-39% of expenses. Hosting the tournaments represented 5-29% of expenses. National Teams cost 11-27 % of annual expenses, and insurance premiums cost 9-17 % of annual expenses.
When it comes to international tournaments, the revenues are split between the IIHF, the CHL, Hockey Canada, and Members. The IIHF received 15% of revenues over 15 000 000 $. The 2019 WJC generated 17 725 571 $ in profit, and after 4 200 000 $ was moved to Hockey Canada's International Pillar Fund, Hockey Canada received 6 353 950 $, the CHL received 4 447 765 $, and the Members received 1 906 185 $. Of the Members share, 200 000 $ was provided to the Member that hosted the event, leaving 1 706 185 to be split among the 12 others. Members also receive a lot of financial benefits paid for by Hockey Canada. Hockey Canada organizes coaching certification courses and Spring Programming, which covers the cost of the tournaments that various Members participate in. For the 2022-23 season, Hockey Canada paid nearly 1 486 000 $ for the Telus, Centennial, Allan, and Esso Cups. Members have confirmed that they have no say in how much or how little funding they receive in a year from Hockey Canada, and that they would welcome conditions being attached to the fundings that they would use. As sponsors distance themselves, and Members ask for more oversight on Hockey Canada's funding to them, that begs the question: Is Hockey Canada a governing board serving public interest? Or are they an indentured servant to the CHL and the IIHF?
Comments