We are writing regarding the new non-sanctioned event “policy.”

https://ontariolacrosse.com/news/2023/12/ola-non-sanctioned-lacrosse-policy

In our view, this policy is ill-conceived, short-sighted, and contrary to the objects of the Ontario Lacrosse Association (“OLA”) as set out in Article B2.01 of the bylaws. Please reconsider.

Recall that the object of the OLA is, as defined in article B2.01 is:

To govern, promote, develop, and foster the game of lacrosse at all levels and in all forms, to all residents regardless of race, sex, creed, age or economic status throughout the Province of Ontario.

Please read past “govern” to the rest of the clause, which is just as applicable. The non-sanctioned event policy is clearly contrary to this mandate in several respects. First, this policy does not promote, develop, and foster the game of lacrosse. Simply put, the inevitable result of this rule is that players will play less lacrosse. It actually suspends those who wish to play more! For many players, particularly those confined by the residency rules to smaller centers, private club lacrosse provides an opportunity where they can develop their skills and play with other players of their caliber. Or, for players whose only sport is lacrosse, it provides yet another opportunity to play the game they love. For still others, “non-sanctioned” events were the way they were introduced to the sport. There is no possible rationale for putting a stop to that. Doing so does not promote, develop, or foster the game in any way. Imposing such a rule is a dereliction of your primary duty.   

Second, this rule is discriminatory in several ways. It discriminates against those of lower economic status. Players with sufficient wealth to play at high-priced prep schools are still permitted to play in the United States in hopes of being recruited to NCAA programs. But players who cannot afford to or choose not to follow that route, for whom club lacrosse may have provided an alternative, are prevented from doing so. With this rule in place, the only option to play field lacrosse in the United States is Team Ontario, which necessarily has limited participation, and is prohibitively expensive for many. The rule also discriminates on the basis of geography. Many players live a significant distance from OMFLL activity, and their center's do not provide field programming. This policy means those players are effectively prohibited from playing lacrosse at all during your field season. Again, this is clearly contrary to article B2.01. It is also contrary to common sense.

We also believe the OLA has failed to properly consider the implications of this policy. The OLA is apparently laboring under a misapprehension that if forced to choose, players will choose OLA over private clubs. This is a significant miscalculation on their part. For kids who had to deal with the pandemic, private clubs were a lifeline. When the OLA was not there, they were, providing a necessary outlet and skill development. Players developed friendships, and loyalty to the programs that allowed them to continue to play the game they loved. Many will, without hesitation, choose to continue with their club instead of their OLA center. The inevitable result of this policy will cause a significant exodus from OLA clubs of players, who will form other leagues. Further, with those players will go many of the volunteers and coaches necessary to make OLA clubs and events run smoothly and effectively. Many of the players who would leave are amongst the most passionate and dedicated. This will significantly undermine Ontario’s standing in national competition, too. And it will impact those who remain, who may be forced to re-locate as teams and OLA club’s collapse. The downstream effects will be catastrophic for the OLA.  

We also believe that the OLA has learned the wrong lesson from their legal battle with a competing junior league. The OLA should have no confidence that the same result will follow here, should an aggrieved party seek legal action. That competitor challenged a long-standing rule prohibiting players from playing in other leagues. This policy at issue here is new and far more wide ranging. It includes any program or clinic, anywhere, if not sanctioned by particular governing bodies. This could apply to any organized skill session anywhere that isn’t OLA sanctioned. That is a far cry from a competing league; it is a staggering overreach. While the OLA no doubt has a strong interest in ensuring players only play in one competitive box league in Ontario at one time, they have no interest whatsoever in what players may do, in another form of the game (ie field vs. box), in their own time, in another country. You have no conceivable interest in preventing players from attending clinics where they can enhance their skills.

The exceptions to the rule also demonstrate its illogic. Players can play for a Division I NCAA program, or for a high-priced preparatory school and still play in OLA sanctioned events, but a group of 10 year olds who have a single skills session or play at a recreational field lacrosse tournament in upstate New York are subject to a 2 year ban. No rational rule could contemplate such an outcome.

The whole rationale of this rule is built on a faulty premise. The OLA claim private organizations leverage resources developed by the OLA. That is backwards. Private clubs allow players to play more and develop their skills. For some, it is the only access they have to high level coaching on a regular basis. For all, it fuels their passion for the game. They bring these skills and passion back to their OLA centers, not the other way around.  

Finally, we also feel it necessary to comment on the cowardly way in which this policy was announced. While the policy has clearly been under consideration for some time, it was not brought before the membership at the AGM nor was it directly announced to the OLA clubs.  Instead, it was placed on the website, on the Friday before a Christmas holiday: a tried-and-true method of releasing news one hopes to bury. The only conclusion one can draw is that it was announced in this manner because the OLA is either unwilling or unable to defend the policy, or subject it to scrutiny, in an open and public forum, such as the AGM.

We suggest a hard look in the mirror. In the United States, lacrosse is amongst the fastest growing sports. Here, despite the best efforts of their volunteers, many clubs can attest to declining registration. Perhaps it is governance such as this that drive kids away from the game, because has anything but the best interests of the players at heart. It puts kids last. It prevents them from fostering their love of the game, playing with their friends, and taking on new opportunities and challenges. The solution to our collective problem of declining registration does not lie in limiting the opportunities to play.  

Again, Ontario Lacrosse Association, please reconsider. Do so before you cause irreparable harm. In our view, three options present themselves:

1)     Rescind the rule immediately; or

2)     Delay the implementation until all members can consider and vote at the next AGM; or failing 1 or 2,

3)     Resign immediately.

If the OLA actually believes that suspending kids who want to play more lacrosse is in the interest of growing the sport, and neither logic, nor the obvious discriminatory and disastrous implications of the policy will sway their view, and they are unwilling to defend this rule in a public forum, then they have no moral authority to govern, and must go.