Sept. 15, 2008
by Steven Russolillo, Special to Lacrosse Magazine Online
The NCAA-imposed changes to men's lacrosse stick regulations are subtle, but the reactions from equipment manufacturers - including Warrior Sports' recent lawsuit against the college sports governing body claiming damages of at least $30 million relating to the new rule - have created a maelstrom.
In 2006, the NCAA decided to shrink stick heads by a half an inch in the middle and increase them a quarter inch in length on the ends, rule changes that should make legal stick checks more effective and faceoffs more competitive. The new regulations were initially slated for 2009, then pushed back to 2010 as a compromise with manufacturers.
Warrior Sports and Athlete's Connection, an athletic retail store in Michigan, recently filed a federal court lawsuit against the NCAA, alleging the stick change will cost players at least $58 million to replace outdated equipment.
"Rather than provide guidelines and parameters within which manufacturers may compete on lacrosse head designs, the new version of the rule sets arbitrary, illogical, unreasonable and overly restrictive design specifications that significantly inhibit competition and innovation," the suit claims, according to a report by The Grand Rapids Press.
Additionally, Warrior contends, manufacturers will have to revamp equipment, scrap old inventory and accept returns of unsold goods.
Warrior Sports and the retailer are requesting damages of at least $30 million, claiming they will suffer an irreversible loss from decades of investment in design.
"Moreover, the new rules will stifle future innovation...and, consequently, will severely limit the choices available to consumers," the suit says.
Warrior refused further comment on this story, pending a statement from its lawyers, product manager Tom Burns said.
Despite Warrior Sports' claims in the lawsuit, other manufacturers don't necessarily share the same feelings about the regulation change. In an e-mailed statement, Jason Goger, general manager of STX, said his company disagrees with Warrior's charges against the NCAA, noting the NCAA gave equipment manufacturers fair opportunities to comment on the proposed rule change and ample time to make the required adjustments.
"Warrior's scare tactic claims in the suit about the effect of the rule change on players and retailers are wrong and unfair," Goger said in the statement. "Players and retailers should be told the true facts: A much smaller percentage of all lacrosse players will be affected by the rule change than Warrior asserts."
Goger declined to comment beyond the statement.
Harrow Sports, a smaller equipment manufacture, had a more neutral take on the lawsuit. Jeremy Gurley, vice president of operations at Harrow, said he doesn't see the rule change as that big of an issue.
"It felt a little bit like sour grapes for us, but we didn't have a big reaction to it one way or the other," Gurley said. "It seems that Warrior is a little bothered by the NCAA trying to tell them what to do. But for us, we're not bothered by it. A rule's a rule and we've got plenty of time to plan for inventory and make any adjustments that need to be made."
Warrior Sports invited Harrow to back them in the lawsuit, but Harrow respectfully declined, Gurley said, adding he expects Warrior extended the offer to other manufacturers.
"It's not unheard of for a manufacturer to sue the NCAA," Gurley said. "Companies feel strongly about things and act upon it, but we don't think this is that big of a deal."
Shamrock Lacrosse declined comment for this story, while Reebok, Gait by de Beer and Maverik did not return phone calls and e-mails.
"I imagine most people are a little interested to see how this turns out," Gurley said, "but I think generally people are just moving on with their lives."
