SJRY supports Oscar Hemming in legal proceedings against Kiekko-Espoo – the Finnish Ice Hockey Association’s actions constitute harassment

Ajankohtainen | 15.04.2026

The Finnish Ice Hockey Players’ Association (SJRY) supports Oscar Hemming in legal proceedings against Kiekko-Espoo in accordance with its earlier decision. The upcoming court case is significant for the realization of all players’ rights, and the grounds for the claim filed in winter rely, among other things, on the 2024 Diarra judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

According to SJRY, the decision of the Finnish Ice Hockey Association not to select Hemming for the U18 national team World Championship training camp roster published on Sunday constitutes harassment. SJRY met with representatives of the Federation regarding the matter last Friday. Hemming’s exclusion from the team has not been justified on sporting grounds, but rather by an “unclear situation” surrounding the player and the dispute with Kiekko-Espoo. The selection was also not made by the U18 national team coaching staff or sporting management, but by unidentified individuals within the Federation. Such grounds and decision-making procedures are unprecedented in Finnish player selections for major tournaments. They are entirely inconsistent with the Federation’s long-established policy that team selections are made purely on sporting grounds by the coaching staff and sporting management. The decision concerning Hemming is also inconsistent with the Federation’s own values, which emphasize respect, community, and the principle of not leaving anyone behind. The credibility of these values is tested precisely in situations like this.

SJRY also considers the decision illogical. The dispute already existed when Hemming last played for the U18 national team in August. If the situation did not prevent participation at that time, it is difficult to see any logical or acceptable reason why it would do so now.

Hemming was also informed by the Federation at the end of October that he would not be eligible for national team selection if he moved to play in the BCHL, as the International Ice Hockey Federation might impose sanctions. Hemming followed this guidance and did not move to the BCHL, but ultimately this brought him no benefit. This demonstrates that the Federation’s conduct has undermined trust in the guidance given to the player. At the same time, the player unnecessarily missed approximately two additional months of games, having already been largely without matches for most of the autumn season.

SJRY emphasizes that, contrary to repeated claims in public, the ongoing legal proceedings are not about whether Hemming’s contract with Kiekko-Espoo is valid or whether it was lawfully terminated. The issue in the case is whether Kiekko-Espoo had the right to prevent or conversely the obligation to approve Hemming’s club transfer last autumn after his contract had been terminated on the basis of special legislation. According to SJRY, Kiekko-Espoo had, and has, no right whatsoever to block the transfer; rather, it has an explicit obligation to approve it.

In accordance with the Diarra judgment and applicable legislation, all players, regardless of age, must have the right to move as free agents to another club and to pursue their profession without unjustified obstacles, even in situations of dispute.

In Hemming’s case, Kiekko-Espoo has not, to date, challenged the termination of the contract in court. If the club genuinely believed, as it claims, that the termination was unlawful and that the contract remained in force, it should have brought this claim before a court. For some reason, Kiekko-Espoo has not done so. Despite its assertions, the club has neither paid Hemming’s salary after the termination nor required him to return to work. Hemming has also, alternatively, terminated the contract on that basis. The club’s conduct following the termination does not support its claim that the player contract remains valid or that the termination was unlawful. On the contrary, the failure to challenge the termination and to pay wages indicates that Kiekko-Espoo has acted in a manner confirming that the contract ended upon its termination last July.

According to SJRY, the matter has been clear from the outset: Hemming’s player contract was lawfully terminated and has ended. Even if the termination were unfounded, contrary to the view of Hemming and SJRY, his transfer should still not be prevented, as an employee’s right to work cannot be restricted in ice hockey in a manner that would not be accepted in any other field. Even after an unjustified termination, the employee must have the right to work freely, as established in the Diarra judgment. In this case, SJRY considers that the termination was not unlawful in any event.

SJRY also considers it significant that Hemming has repeatedly attempted to resolve the matter amicably with Kiekko-Espoo. Several settlement proposals have been made to the club, but none have been accepted. Kiekko-Espoo also refused judicial mediation, indicating that it does not wish to resolve the matter amicably.

– The Diarra judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union made it clear already in 2024 that sports transfer systems cannot override a worker’s right to free movement and to work. In SJRY’s view, this is precisely what has been happening in Finnish ice hockey as well as internationally. If a player’s transfer can be blocked in such circumstances, this is no longer a mere difference in interpretation but a serious issue of legal protection. Maintaining such a system is unacceptable, says SJRY Executive Director Risto Kauppinen.

The Finnish Ice Hockey Association is not a party to the legal proceedings or dispute between Kiekko-Espoo and Hemming. Therefore, SJRY considers it highly problematic and unreasonable that the Federation, through its actions, is complicating the position of a young player and jeopardizing his future. The decision not to select Hemming appears to be one in which the player’s legal protection and sporting equality have been subordinated.

– In this situation, the Federation should act as a neutral party and should not, at a systemic level, side with a club in an ongoing dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts and to which it is not a party. When a young player is effectively excluded from a World Championship project without a justified - or even openly stated - sporting reason, this constitutes inappropriate treatment that is difficult to view as anything other than harassment or retaliation against the player. The decision also highlights the problems of the pyramid model in sport, where the governing body aligns itself with the system and the club rather than with the lawful rights of the player. Oscar is now fighting exceptionally courageously also on behalf of other players, and he deserves the full support of our player community, says SJRY Chairman Teemu Ramstedt.

SJRY considers it essential that Finnish ice hockey and sport more broadly ensures that players’ legal protection and equality in selections for major tournaments are upheld, and that transfer practices of sports federations are promptly brought into line with applicable legislation and EU case law. SJRY will provide further updates as necessary as the legal proceedings progress.