Former CEO Murry Gunty answers: Is Black Bear a hockey monopoly?
Former Black Bear Sports CEO Murry Gunty took a limited number of questions on video from reporter Kenny Jacoby. Is Black Bear a hockey monopoly?
Four hockey parents filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Black Bear Sports Group, alleging that the youth hockey behemoth misled families by requiring them to book rooms at specific hotels and inflated prices during their children’s competitions.
The parents say they were charged “junk fees” and could usually find cheaper rates at the same hotels without using Black Bear’s booking platform. But they said that Black Bear coerced them into paying steep room prices by threatening to disqualify their kids and teams from playing if they did not comply.
The lawsuit, filed Sept. 1 in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, alleges that Black Bear’s “stay-to-play” hotel policies at tournaments and other events defrauded families of millions of dollars and unnecessarily drove up the price to play.
It comes on the heels of a USA TODAY investigation in May, which found that Black Bear aggressively bought up dozens of ice rinks in 11 states – including many in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan and Connecticut – then leveraged that control to raise prices, force out longstanding community-based teams and replace them with expensive, for-profit alternatives.
“It’s just a money grab from parents,” Karen Dahlberg O’Connell, the consumer protection attorney for Almeida Law Group who filed the case, told USA TODAY. “People should be able to choose where they want to stay.”
Black Bear did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“Stay-to-play” rules have become increasingly commonplace in youth sports. They are one focus of the “Let Kids Play Act,” a federal bill that aims to end “vulture practices” in the youth sports industry, which generates an estimated $40 billion annually.
Black Bear is one of several private-equity firms and big-money investment groups that have consolidated huge slices of the youth sports ecosystems for hockey, flag football, baseball, basketball, volleyball and cheerleading – further turning what were once community-based activities into profit vehicles for wealthy investors.
In addition to rinks, Black Bear owns or operates hundreds of youth hockey teams, leagues, tournaments, showcases, a scorekeeping software and Black Bear TV, a live streaming service that bills families hundreds of dollars a year to watch their kids’ games. Tens of thousands of kids participate in Black Bear’s stay-to-play tournaments and other events each year.
Beyond the lawsuit, Black Bear faces another legal threat from the Michigan Attorney General’s Office, which launched an investigation into the company earlier this year for potentially anticompetitive business practices.
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs – Gary Oliver, Brendan Kane, and Scott and Jennifer Wachterhauser – are parents of youth hockey players in Delaware, New York and New Jersey. Each has kids who have played in multiple Defender hockey tournaments, a Black Bear subsidiary brand.
Defender requires all teams based at least 60 or 75 miles from its events’ host rinks to book rooms at specific hotels from which it receives kickbacks – even when players have family members they could stay with in the area or would prefer to commute, use their own hotel points or book an AirBnb.
“All teams and participants are required to book their hotel accommodations through the tournament’s official housing provider,” Defender’s website says. “Families are not to contact the hotel directly to book rooms for the event.”
Defender’s website adds there are “No exceptions” to those rules. As the lawsuit alleges, however, Black Bear on other parts of its website offers a “buyout fee” as an alternative to the requirements. The lawsuit says Black Bear hid that fact to “deceptively induce” parents to reserve rooms at its preferred hotels through its booking platform.
The parent plaintiffs each paid higher room rates by booking through Defender than they could have paid by booking through Expedia, Hotels.com or the hotel’s own website, as screenshots attached to the lawsuit show.
Additionally, Defender charged each of the parents unexplained fees when they made the reservations, the lawsuit says, while providing little or nothing of value in return. Some of the fees Defender charged are listed on receipts as simply, “Non-refundable fee” or “Charged Now.”
The lawsuit calls these “junk fees,” which the Federal Trade Commission describes as “unfair or deceptive fees that are charged for goods or services that have little or no added value to the consumer.”
Among the counts listed against Black Bear are violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. The class of people the lawsuit aims to cover extends beyond those states to potentially anyone whose child attended a Black Bear stay-to-play event in the last three to six years.
Youth sports and big business
The lawsuit is not the first to take on stay-to-play practices in youth sports.
Varsity Brands, a private-equity backed company that controls much of youth cheerleading, paid $82.5 million in 2024 to settle a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in 35 states who alleged, among other things, that Varsity forced them to buy unnecessary hotel rooms at its competitions.
Dahlberg O’Connell, who filed the lawsuit against Black Bear, filed another class-action lawsuit in May against Team Travel Source, a major player in the stay-to-play space, over similar practices.
“What we need is for people to decide that they don’t want to do stay-to-play and find ways to get around it, either by getting together and boycotting Black Bear tournaments or choosing another league,” she said. “It’s hard for parents, but it’s going to take collective action.”
The lawsuit filed this month says that across the nation, some families are feeling cash-strapped to keep up with the rising costs of youth sports.
“Parents are feeling the pinch,” the lawsuit says, citing a recent study. “The average family paid nearly $1,500 for one child’s sports experiences in 2024, and the cost for families with more than one child participating in a sport was undoubtedly higher.”
The dramatic increase in costs has led to a widening income gap in youth travel sports, the lawsuit said, noting that “youth players from households earning $100,000 or more per year are two times more likely to play travel sports than those from homes making under $50,000.”