
Trump tariff tumult has ripples for sporting goods, puts costly hockey gear in price-hike crosshair
Calls from the U.S. to Roustan Hockey headquarters in Canada in recent weeks have been anything but routine, as bulk orders of name-brand sticks have suddenly become complicated conversations.
'These customers want to know: When their orders ship, will they have to pay an additional 25% tariff? And we respond by saying, 'Well, right now we don't know, so they postpone their order or cancel their order because they want to know before they order what the cost is going to be,' said Graeme Roustan, who owns the company that makes and sells more than 100,000 hockey sticks annually to the U.S. market.
The prospect of 25% tariffs by President Donald Trump on Canadian imports, currently paused for some goods but facing full implementation on Wednesday, has caused headaches if not havoc throughout the commercial ecosystem. The sports equipment industry is certainly no exception, with so many of the products manufactured for sports -loving Americans outside of the U.S.
No two countries in the world are intertwined athletically more than Canada and the U.S. are with hockey, either, making mere talk of a trade war a spreadsheet-shuffler — and potentially a budget-buster — for businesses based around the rink and the consumers of their products.
Roustan Hockey bought the Christian and Northland brands that originated in Minnesota and now manufactures them with other products under its umbrella in Brantford, Ontario, the town where Wayne Gretzky grew up about 60 miles (100 kilometers) southwest of Toronto. About 40% of Roustan's business is with the U.S. market, and about 90% of sales of Christian and Northland gear go to American customers.
'Our business with the U.S. is steady right now because people are trying to get their orders in before the tariffs take effect, but I'm very concerned that once the tariffs go into effect that there will be people in, say, Minnesota who will think twice about buying a Christian or a Northland stick because of the 25% tariff,' Roustan said in a phone interview. 'So the unknown is still unknown.'
Many pieces of retail hockey equipment originate in Asia, including China. Mexico is another player in the market, home to a factory for Warrior brand sticks, for example. Those countries are in the tariff crosshairs, too.
'Whether it's in effect for a week or gets retracted or whether it's a future date where we're going to have some announcement, all that makes it very challenging to run and operate a business,' said Todd Smith, the chief executive officer of the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. 'The general viewpoint is uneasiness and confusion.'
Roustan bought Bauer's hockey outfitting business from Nike in 2008 and oversaw that company for four years. By the time Roustan assumed control, he said, Bauer — born in Canada in 1927 and a ubiquitous name in the sport — had shifted all of its manufacturing sites to Asia for cost savings on labor and facilities.
'The industry has done an admirable job of manufacturing across the globe while doing as much as they possibly can domestically,' Smith said. 'The components made internationally are made internationally because we don't have the manufacturing capability in the U.S. and we don't have the workforce.'
In hockey, of course, a lot of gear is required to take the ice. That gear is also notoriously expensive, which puts this sport as subject to the tariff tumult as any. Just in North America, hockey equipment is a $1.3 billion business and growing, as estimated by Grand View market research. Any added cost from the import tax will almost certainly trickle down to the consumer.
Organizations like SFIA have long had an eye on rising costs of youth sports, concerned about the effect on participation and driven to increase accessibility to all activities in underprivileged communities.
'If folks aren't aware of it now, they should be well aware that tariffs are bad for sports across the board,' Smith said.
The shows will still go on, tariffs or not
Most families with kids in sports are busy enough shuttling those young athletes to practices and shopping for the next round of gear that topics like international politics, global economics and commercial supply chains usually get the backseat.
Tariffs might drive up the price of hockey sticks? Well, just add that to the pile.
For Jeremiah Lamont and his family in Minneapolis, staying on top of the equipment inventory for two hockey-playing boys is enough of project on its own. Paying for it is another story, as his 12-year-old son Max enters each new stage of competition.
'The youth skates cost about $200. Well, his foot grows a half-inch, he can't get into the youth ones, and now those same skates are $450,' Lamont said, estimating the current total cost of gear at more than $1,500, some of which must be annually replaced.
Ice time and travel costs sold separately, of course.
'He likes it. It's good for him. So we just figure, 'Why not?'' Lamont said.
The sticker shock is real for hockey newbies, as Kelley Baer and her family in Colorado found out when now-13-year-old Brian got going on the ice. Sticks, skates, helmets, shin guards, elbow and shoulder pads, chest protectors, neck guards, they all add up.
Those sticks don't always last the season, either, that vital-yet-fragile piece of equipment perpetually at risk for fracturing from an awkward hit — or in a moment of frustration. In the NHL, a replacement is always at the ready. A pile of sticks is a luxury many young players don't have.
'I'm like, 'No, no, no, no, no! That is a $400 stick. Do not slam that thing on the ice!' Baer said. 'We always laugh about that, but it's also very serious. We used it as a gateway of a conversation about showing your emotions on the ice and how you've got to be able to contain that as a leader. If you start losing your mind and slamming your stick, that's a disadvantage for you.'
The life lessons in sports run as deep as the passions that fuel this giant slice of economy and culture.
'Yes, it's expensive and we are fortunate in that we can afford it,' Baer said. 'He's our kid, and we love him. We want to support him in what he wants to do, and we'll figure out a way.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Who benefits from Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill depends largely on income. Children are no exception
House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family's finances. Those proposals — including $1,000 investment 'Trump Accounts' for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents. Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate. 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News' 'This Week.' Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance. Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to 'reductions in in-kind transfers,' it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 20 million children won't get full $2,500 child tax credit House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028. The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents' income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can't claim it if they don't have a tax obligation. Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family's income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans' plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said. 'It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,' Ruben said. 'And that's not a pro-family policy.' A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans' plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben. In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said. The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said. New red tape for a low-income tax credit House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify. When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said. More than 2 million children's food assistance at risk House Republican lawmakers' plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034. SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said. More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children. 'We're talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,' Bergh said. Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week. Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program's history, Bergh said. States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said. While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children's eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said. Health coverage losses would adversely impact families Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute. Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP. In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
WNBA reaches media rights deal to air games on ION
June 13 - ION will continue to air WNBA regular-season games on Friday nights after the league and Scripps reached a multi-year media rights deal. Terms of the deal -- which will take effect for the 2026 season -- were not disclosed. "This new multi-year agreement reflects the growing excitement surrounding the league and the rising demand for WNBA games," WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert said in a statement. "Through Scripps' ION Network Friday Night doubleheaders, we will continue to showcase the world-class talent of WNBA athletes to even more fans nationwide." ION began airing WNBA game on Friday nights in 2023, with the initial three-year agreement between ION reportedly worth $13 million annually. In its opening Friday this season, former UConn star Paige Bueckers' debut with the Dallas Wings drew an average of 639,000 viewers, and the league debut of the Golden State Valkyries drew an average of 581,000 viewers, per The Athletic. The May 30 matchup between the Indiana Fever and the Connecticut Sun averaged 851,000 viewers, making it the most-watched WNBA game without Caitlin Clark in the network's history, according to SportsMediaWatch. As of the end of May, ION has seen year-over-year average viewership increase 39 percent to average 550,000, per SMW. The WNBA also broadcasts games on CBS and has an 11-year media rights package with Disney, NBC and Amazon that takes effect next season worth an average of $200 million a year. Members of the Women's National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA) were reportedly not included in the negotiations with Scripps, according to Front Office Sports. Commissioner Engelbert had previously expressed support for the players' union being represented at the table for such discussions, which a union source acknowledged was "unprecedented" but said the WNBPA is "hopeful" can happen in future negotiations, according to Front Office Sports. --Field Level Media


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Tax hikes will force retailers to push up prices, cut jobs and halt shop openings retail chief warns Rachel Reeves
has been warned that further tax hikes will cause retailers to push up prices, cut jobs and halt shop openings. The latest alert was issued by Andy Higginson, the chairman of JD Sports and the British Retail Consortium industry group. He said 'all' retailers have already been left 'looking to reduce their labour forces' following a barrage of tax rises this year. And now firms fear another raid after the Chancellor's spending review on Wednesday. Concerns that bosses are set to be hammered at the next autumn Budget were ignited after Ms Reeves said she had failed to shrink the public spending 'envelope'. Major retailers, including Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsbury's, have already axed staff. Firms have had to grapple with higher cost pressures in the wake of measures introduced in the Chancellor's autumn Budget. A sharp rise in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and a big hike in the national minimum wage mean retailers face a £5 billion higher bill after the Budget, according to the British Retail Consortium. Firms have also been disappointed by the Government's lack of urgent action to reform business rates. Mr Higginson told Radio 4's Today programme: 'You have seen immediately the impact of the changes made in April, the slowdown that has come straight through to the economy.' He warned that in the end the Government's tax hikes 'do work through' the supply chain, meaning consumers pay more. Describing the influx of rises introduced in April as a 'tax on jobs', Mr Higginson added: 'All the retailers I know have been looking to reduce their labour forces.' It comes as dismal employment figures published this week revealed UK payroll numbers have shrunk by 276,000 over the past seven months. But in recent days, the Chancellor and Prime Minister have claimed that Labour has 'fixed the foundations' of the economy.