Undue Influence - Canadian Olympic Athletes Are They Forced to Sign?

In today's blog I am going to attempt to shed light on the undue influence that our Canadian Olympic Athletes face if they are to participate in the Olympic games. To preface, I will give a bit of context on the matter I am speaking.

Olympic Athlete's train from very young ages. They train every day to become not only the top in their age groups (for their sport) but to become the best in the nation. After all of their years of hard work they finally become eligible to fulfill their dreams of competing in the Olympic games. But wait, before they are able to put all their hard work into this competition they must sign and abide by the contract that the Canadian Olympic Committee forces them to sign. Now what this contract entails I am not completely sure but I do have a pretty good idea that the terms are extremely onerous on these athletes. I also know that they must sign these contracts if they are going to ever be able to compete in the Olympic games. What I am going to argue in this blog is that these Athletes’ are signing these contracts under undue influence.

What is Undue Influence?

Fitzgerald & Olivo (2000) describe Undue Influence as:

•    "Persuasion, pressure, or influence short of actual force that overpowers a weaker party's judgment and free will and imposes the will of the stronger party

The principle can be applied in two types of contract situations:

1.  Actual undue influence, which covers contracts, including gifts, where on party actually engages in conduct that results in applying moral or other undue pressure to obtain a desired contractual result; and

2. presumed undue influence, which arises when the relationship between the parties raises a presumption of undue influence at or before the time the contract was made" (Fitzgerald & Olivo, 2000). 

These have been pulled right from the textbook "Fundamentals of Contract Law" and are not by any means my own words.

Based on these descriptions I believe it already becomes clearer that Canadian Olympic Athletes are signing under undue influence. Take the Canadian Olympic Committee and break down its role in this contractual situation. They are the sole, monopolistic power in charge of all Canadian Athletics’ surrounding the Olympic games. They are the only governing body that our athletes can go to if they want to participate in the games. Immediately in my mind they overpower the athlete signing the agreement. The COC (Canadian Olympic Committee) in my opinion influences (even forces) the weaker party being the athlete into signing these agreements because they know that if these athletes want to compete in the Olympic games they must go through the COC.

Based on what I can see and through the application of the principal of undue influence I believe that the contracts being signed by Olympic Athletes are void. There is not a balance of power when both parties come to the table and the athlete either signs or never completes their life goal of competing in the Olympic games.

I believe there needs to be other options available for these athletes which regulates the contractual agreements and does not force or influence them into signing.

Gavin Moore

Fitzgerald, J., & Olivo, L. (2000). Fundamentals of contract law. Toronto, Canada: Emond Montgomery Publications.

Mike Richards - Contract Termination

    Today we will be taking a look into the contract fiasco that Mike Richards and the L.A. King's of the National Hockey League have gotten themselves into. For some brief context I will overview the basic facts of the case that have been released the public. As I am not privy to some of the information that would be vital to determining how this contract dispute will be settled (i.e Richard's Standard Players' Contract). Some of the information I will be presenting will therefore be somewhat speculative in nature; but from the analysis that I have already done I believe I have found how this case will be settled.

Context:

• Mike Richards is an NHL player who is under contract through to the 2019 season (signed in 2007).
• Richard's is owed 22 million dollars on the remaining 5 years of his contract. 
• Richard's was charged in June of 2015 for possession of OxyContin
• L.A. Kings terminated Richard's contract in August of 2015
• Reason for termination is for "material breach"

In June of 2015, Mike Richard's was caught at a Canadian/American border in Emerson, Manitoba for possession of controlled substance OxyContin. It is illegal to have possession of oxycontin without prescription to this drug. A couple months after Mike Richard's arrest the L.A. King's make a statement that they have exercised their right to terminate his contract for material breach. (Material breach essentially is a breach of contract that states one party fails to perform their obligations under the contract). Now since the L.A. King's have never come out and stated that they are terminating his contract because of recent interaction with the law this part of the blog becomes a little more speculative. 

If the L.A. King's have decided to terminate the contract on the basis that Richard's has been charged for drug possession and is therefore in a material breach of the contract than they will have no grounds for termination because of the Collective bargaining agreement that is signed between the National Hockey Leagues' Players' Association (NHLPA) and the NHL. In the C.B.A. there is a drug policy that states that any player who arrested under drug related charges is to be placed in "Stage 1" of the drug program. If the player is subsequently convicted for use of a controlled substance than they are to be placed in "Stage 2." The stages are not all that important, what is important that the NHLPA and the NHL have already in contract, that if any player is to face legal action because of involvement with drug abuse than they are to first be placed in the predetermined drug program.

This program is in place to protect players from these exact instances. Where the player has some involvement with drugs and need assistance. The NHLPA and NHL step into to aid the player from team's being able to terminate their contracts. 

This whole fiasco of terminating contracts comes down to simply another contract. In the C.B.A. it clearly outlines team protocol of what to do should a drug related issue arise. The L.A. King's in my opinion do not have a right to terminate Mike Richard's contract and he should and most likely will have a successful grievance through the NHLPA.