A hockey equipment manufacturer based in Brantford, Ont. is at the centre of a legal dispute over who controls the commercial rights to Team Canada’s jerseys and apparel. TRUE Hockey reached a new agreement with the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) to supply uniforms and apparel for teams competing in IIHF events, replacing Nike as the federation’s supplier. But Hockey Canada challenged the arrangement in a Swiss court, arguing the IIHF cannot design, manufacture or sell Team Canada jerseys without its approval. The dispute stems from a deal between the IIHF and the Brantford-based TRUE Hockey, who were acquired by Graeme Roustan, owner of the private investment firm Roustan Capital. Under the agreement, TRUE will supply jerseys and apparel for teams competing in IIHF events, excluding the Olympics and the men’s and women’s world championships. At the same time, Hockey Canada has extended Bauer’s deal as its official jersey partner, with the organization recently announcing plans to bring back its iconic crest. Taylor McKee, director of the Centre for Sport Capacity at Brock University, said the dispute raises questions about how the Bauer agreement was reached. “Hockey Canada has a problem right now where if TRUE was pledging to make these uniforms in Canada, then that would’ve been part of a regular tender process,” McKee said. “Now, if that didn’t happen, and if that’s not market standard, it’s something Canadians, I think, are not going to look kindly on, especially if there was a made-in-Canada option.” In May, a Zurich court temporarily restricted the IIHF’s ability to commercialize Team Canada jerseys, following Team Canada’s original request. But, after hearing arguments from both sides, the Swiss court rejected Hockey Canada’s request and revoked the temporary orders. The court found IIHF rules give the federation broad commercial rights connected to its competitions, including the supply of on-ice uniforms. It also found TRUE’s agreement was not significantly different from the commercial rights the IIHF had previously granted to Nike. McKee said what makes the deal notable is TRUE’s position in the hockey equipment market. “There’s a graveyard of equipment manufacturers going back a couple decades,” he explained. “So, the fact that TRUE has achieved this level of market penetration is actually an incredible accomplishment in and of itself.” Hockey Canada argues the ruling does not resolve the underlying dispute. In a statement to CTV News, the organization described the matter as complex and said the court’s decision dealt only with interim measures. “No ruling has been made on the merits of this matter,” Hockey Canada said, adding that it will “continue to evaluate all options to ensure that Hockey Canada has the sole discretion to select our commercial partners.” USA Hockey joined forces with Hockey Canada in its attempt to prevent the contract between TRUE and the IIHF. The court denied both of the hockey associations. The Swiss court also addressed what Team Canada jerseys could look like if Hockey Canada does not provide TRUE with access to its protected branding. According to the court documents, TRUE could manufacture a more generic red-and-white jersey featuring “Canada” across the chest without Hockey Canada’s intellectual property. The court valued the dispute at 21.2 million Swiss francs, or more than C$36 million, based on Hockey Canada’s estimate of potential annual losses. Under TRUE’s agreement with the IIHF, 15 per cent of the revenue will be distributed to the hockey associations of member countries, including Hockey Canada. Hockey Canada was given 30 days to appeal the court’s decision. Given the ruling was on interim measures, the legal dispute could continue over who controls the commercial rights to Team Canada’s jerseys.
