Hockey Canada asks who gets to choose who has the Maple Leaf?

Article content

That Canada and the United States will be wearing boring, generic jerseys at this weekend’s Women’s World Cup in Denmark is enough history as it is.

Article content

It is the latest step in an ongoing battle between the two national associations and the International Ice Hockey Federation over who controls the commercial rights in international hockey – and when.

Article content

Article content

The short version is traditionally that the IIHF has control over what is worn at their tournaments and can sell merchandise from those tournaments – like the various world championships and the Olympics. When it comes to national federations selling merchandise in their home countries, they have always been allowed to do so, be it at games outside of these tournaments or in stores for everyday retail.

This is even enshrined in the statutes of the IIHF. Everyone understands the drill.

At least until this year, when things get very, very tough.

You may have heard that Hockey Canada and USA Hockey were in a Swiss court in September seeking an injunction to protect their own brand, and that they lost that case. Which brings us to Thursday’s discovery of jerseys that simply read “Canada” and “USA” on them.

Article content

Article content

It is now an open question: who may wear the maple leaf?

The dispute is nowhere near a conclusion — even though Hockey Canada unveiled new Bauer-designed jerseys last week. In the past, Canada would have worn those jerseys, but with a Nike brand where the Bauer badge would normally be. That’s just the way it’s always been. Fans may remember that last winter in Milan, Canada had jerseys that said Nike overseas, but when you went to a store in Canada, it still said Bauer.

Last spring, however, IIHF bosses announced that they wanted to change the organization’s rules to give them full power over commercial rights. To do this, they tried to hold a special meeting in May to change the rules, which means that whoever has the IIHF as a supplier, the various national federations will replace their deals, and that they will then be able to sell the jerseys in the domestic markets.

Given that the vast majority of international hockey jersey sales take place in North America — one source suggested that as much as 90 percent of total sales take place on this side of the Atlantic — you can see why the IIHF would want to get in on the action.

Article content

That’s how the Canadians and the Americans came to court. In May, they managed to secure an order to delay the extraordinary congress that the IIHF had convened. In September, the Swiss court ruled against them. And so here we are, looking at these stupid jerseys.

For weeks, Canada and the United States have been asking for confirmation of what their jerseys will look like. They were only seen on Thursday. The deep designs follow what was shown in court filings that have been available to the public since the ruling in September.

But it hardly seemed real.

As Canada waits to find out what their jersey will look like and continue discussions about what they might wear, the IIHF obviously felt emboldened by the court ruling, and Hockey Canada relied on the fact that the current statutes and statues – which are not up for renewal until 2028 – still give them primacy over their branding.

At one point, a source revealed, Canada even offered to kill the IIHF’s new Bauer jerseys, but were turned down.

Article content

Of course, this all happens leading up to a women’s tournament. If women feel annoyed it’s happening on their watch, they should be. It’s hard to imagine this not being resolved before next month’s World Juniors in Alberta. No hockey player should wonder what is going on with the supposed adults.

Which brings us to a final observation about Thursday’s discovery.

When you look at the jersey unveilings that are all over the IIHF Women’s Instagram account, you won’t spy a single manufacturer’s mark on the front or back. Weird, isn’t it?

We believe it should be TRUE, as in True Hockey, the popular hockey manufacturer that was announced a year ago as the IIHF’s new supplier of uniforms and apparel, starting with this season. Nike had previously held the contract, but told the IIHF last year that they were getting out of hockey altogether and would not renew.

And swooped truth, which when the deal was announced, was also in the process of being taken over by Graeme Roustan, Lake Ontario hockey stick impresario who owns the Hockey News, operates a wooden hockey stick business, and the previous Bauer property. He’s been in the game for a long time, so it was a partnership that made sense.

Article content

And yet there is a void. A request for comment from the IIHF went unanswered. A message on Roustan’s website has not yet been answered. Other than a news release from the IIHF last October, there has been little mention from the IIHF of the partnership on social media – there is only a post about the latest deal that was sent out at the same time as the release. There is one video with an influencer wearing real gloves at the Olympics, but there are other influencer videos where farmer’s gear is on display.

True’s own social media accounts and website make little mention of the True Deal. Roustan Capital’s website is full of news about the comings and goings of the owner, and also about other deals True has made with other agencies, such as minor hockey in Ontario, and even meetings with IIHF officials like former president Luc Tardif. But there’s no mention of the deal between True and the IIHF — at least not anymore.

(By the way, Tardif is no longer running for the IIHF. He was not on the ballot in the last presidential election last month.)

So, we’re left to wonder, did the True and IIHF deal fall through? It’s all very strange.

pjohnston@postmedia.com

Article content