Over the weekend, teams of 9-year-olds in Toronto played ice hockey for cash. The winners of the Junior Canadiens Novice International Cup tournament took home $2,500, the second-place team $1,250, third $750 and fourth $500. The Toronto Star publicized the tournament last Thursday with a story titled “Kids competing for big bucks.”

In my view, this completely violates the spirit of minor hockey and healthy competition. It turns a fun day on the ice for kids into a pressure-filled, adult contest of dollars and cents. What’s next? Will they raise the ante next year to $10,000, $20,000 or even $25,000?

Dynacare Medical Laboratories put up the money. In explaining the cash reward system, the company’s CEO said, “If I can make it easier for some kids to play hockey, then that’s what I want to do.”

Make it easier? Everyone in sport recognizes and applauds companies that donate much-needed sponsorship dollars. But to offer that support in the form of cash on the line for the outcome of kids’ hockey games is an appalling precedent.

Can you imagine the 9-year-old goalie who lets in a late third-period goal, or the defenceman who fails to clear the puck and costs his team more than $1,000? That child will most certainly be singled out and learn that mistakes, however small, are not okay and cost money.

The host team’s general manager described their cash-for-winning approach as “progressive” and continued with the comment that “hockey has to change.” While most agree that the direction of hockey in Canada needs to change, I believe the silent majority is looking for the game to follow a different path.

From the dozens of hockey people I have worked with over the past 20 years - from NHL presidents, GMs and scouts to minor hockey volunteers - the terms I have heard most in regards to a positive approach to kids’ hockey include “skills,” “fun,” “creativity,” “sportsmanship” and “accessibility.” How is it that what occurs on the ice or in the rinks is so different from what the vast majority in hockey want to see? There is a huge chasm between the inclusive “open-ice” philosophies of the Wayne Gretzkys and Ken Drydens of the hockey world and the ideas of those who actually operate our game and influence our children on a day-to-day basis.

One need only glance at last week’s newspaper headlines and television stories to wonder, rightly or wrongly, if the integrity of our game is under siege. A hockey dad is shown pummeling another dad in front of young players, and property owners are portrayed as attempting to banish hockey from our streets. Someone needs to draw a line on the ice, as it were, and stick up for hockey. Forcing 9 year-olds to play for money is where I think the line must be drawn.

Years ago, I asked long-time Leaf captain and Hockey Hall of Famer George Armstrong how his kids were doing in the game. He replied “Hockey in Canada will be in good shape when parents decide that it is being played for their children’s benefit, not their own.”

At the time, I really didn’t pay that much attention to his comment. Today, I would ask George whom he thought was benefiting from the play-hockey-for-money approach. However, it’s probably not necessary to ask that question, I think we already know the answer.

Bob Stellick is a sports marketing consultant and former director of business operations for the Toronto Maple Leafs.