A judge trial is scheduled for this September in a case that could alter the professional sport in the U.S. and Canada. The long-running competitive dispute involving the best level of soccer in the United States is about to start.
The dispute pits the North American Soccer League ( NASL), a men’s league that operated between 2011 and 2017, against U. S. Soccer and Major League Soccer ( MLS ).
Report wisdom motions in the seven-year-old case were denied by a judge in the Eastern District of New York on Wednesday.
A significant portion of the case involves U.S. Soccer’s guidelines for sanctioning Division I, II, and III professional sports leagues and how those guidelines have been applied. U.S. Soccer takes into account the maximum number of teams and the potential of the stadium seating. Sanctioning is important for a team’s ability to gain validity with followers, sports and broadcasters. Additionally, it makes it possible for a club to demand higher entry fees to newcomers and hire more skilled players. Players are eligible to play in FIFA-sanctioned games and tournaments as well as for the U.S. National Teams as a result of their work on a sanctioned staff.

NASL contends that MLS and U.S. Soccer conspired to prevent NASL from competing with MLS in secret. NSL was established in 2009 after teams from the USL, a small group affiliated with MLS, disbanded in an effort to establish a group that may compete with MLS. U. S. Soccer recognized NASL as a D2 division, but when it sought D1 position, U. S. Soccer rejected the program. U. S. Soccer even denied NASL’s reputation as a D2 group for 2018 when it granted that reputation to USL. NASL therefore suspended activities.
Contrastingly, U. S. Soccer granted MLS discounts to maintain its D1 position even when MLS was out of conformity. For instance, D1 standards require that a player’s house facility have a furniture capacity of at least 15, 000. Certainly all MLS venues met that need, but U. S. Soccer granted waivers as fresh MLS arenas were built. NASL denies NASL’s waiver requests, but NASL also highlights the willingness of U.S. Soccer to allow MLS to operate without meeting requirements and (arguably ) examines NASL more closely.
When NASL sued U. S. Soccer in 2017, it sought a tentative lawsuit that would have compelled U. S. Soccer to identify NASL as a D2 group. A federal prosecutor denied NASL’s activity. However, the situation may continue for years and even expand, with more statements raised and with MLS named as another accused.
U. S. District Judge Brian Cogan’s attempt this week addresses the events ‘ movements for summary view, and NASL’s statement that U. S. Soccer’s standards—and how they are applied—violate competitive rules.
Cogan determined that NASL’s state that the requirements themselves violate antitrust law is unfounded as a matter of rules. He reasoned that NASL’s claims are based on the “real- earth software” and “enforcement” of the standards, including U. S. Soccer’s neglect of rank and cancellation requests. The compatibility of the standards with antitrust law does not merit further analysis.

However, Cogan ruled that a jury should decide whether those standards ‘ application is in line with antitrust law. He argued that the pre-trial discovery’s evidence and testimony leave a mixed bag.
On one hand, NASL “does not offer any direct evidence of an agreement or conspiracy”, which arguably undermines its claim. In that same vein, U. S. Soccer and MLS insist that there are no documents or witnesses showing that U. S. Soccer agreed to exempt MLS from U. S. Soccer’s standards.
But Cogan underscored NASL has introduced” circumstantial evidence of parallel conduct” by U. S. Soccer and MLS. He also noted that the absence of direct evidence “is the whole point of circumstantial evidence, as unlawful conspirators rarely commit their plan to writing.”
To that end, Cogan drew attention to MLS “enjoy]ing ] status as a D1 league” without having to comply with D1 standards. Sunil Gulati, the former president of the United States Soccer, and Don Garber, the MLS commissioner, “repeatedly encouraged the]U. S. Soccer ] Board to grant every D1 waiver request made by MLS,” he added.
The stadium capacity requirement, Cogan stressed, was deemed a disqualifying factor for NASL yet not for MLS.
The judge also made reference to evidence that suggested NASL’s “emergence as a potential competitor to MLS” was the first step in the development of formal standards. Cogan argued that a change like this might be viewed as circumstantial evidence that the MLS and U.S. Soccer have agreed to restrain competition. Cogan further noted testimony from former U. S. Soccer president Robert Contiguglia, who acknowledged there was less “formal oversight” prior to 2009.
But U. S. Soccer and MLS flatly reject any insinuation of a conspiracy. They assert that the standards were created prior to NASL’s existence, which discredits any notion that the standards were meant to devastate NASL. According to Cogan, this parties ‘ timeline and factual disagreement ca n’t be resolved at the summary judgment stage.
Cogan also made note of interpretative disagreements over the formation of a” Soccer United Marketing” to handle licensing and marketing by MLS owners. NASL highlights how that entity entered into agreements with U. S. Soccer to market both U. S. Soccer and MLS, with U. S. Soccer netting “hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue” as a result.
According to NASL, those agreements contain proof of concerted action. But U. S. Soccer and MLS insist those agreements are unrelated to the standards, which, unlike those agreements, are at issue in the case. According to Cogan, this disagreement “is yet another material fact issue that needs to be looked into at trial.”
Cogan also provided an explanation of the conflicting viewpoints of the parties regarding the alleged dominance of MLS over U.S. Soccer’s Board. NSL puts forth the claim that” Gulati handpicked members of the U.S. Soccer Board who approved and approved the Standards while he was working for an MLS team.”
Along those lines, board members’ statements referenced in Cogan’s ruling include:” It’s not clear Sunil]Gulati] needs the Board. Some decisions are completely made outside the Board, and” We go to meetings to rubber stamp things.”
Yet U. S. Soccer and MLS maintain the alleged control argument is another red herring in this litigation, which is about application of rules, not board control. They stress that MLS- affiliated board members did n’t vote on sanctioning applications. Cogan wrote,” I agree with defendants,” and that the mere fact that these leaders abstained from the vote raises the question of whether the U.S. Soccer Board was actually dominated by MLS.
Cogan further determined that the parties ‘ conflicting portrayals of pro and anticompetitive effects stem from U.S. Soccer’s management of pro soccer were ineligible.
NASL makes a logical argument that because U. S. Soccer’s application of standards has made MLS and USL the only D1 and D2 leagues, respectively, consumers have fewer choices on leagues to follow. Cogan wrote that MLS and USL have been able to charge higher expansion team prices because their league memberships are the only products that D1 and D2 league members can purchase.
However, U.S. Soccer and the MLS make a logical argument that the standards ‘ application does not result in these alleged anticompetitive effects. The defendants claim that NASL’s problems are the result of “its own mismanagement” and that there is no evidence to support a decline in the quality of soccer leagues or games or the harm to fans.
The trial is set to begin Sept. 9. If NASL wins and prevails in appeals, U. S. Soccer could be forced to restructure how pro soccer is overseen. In theory, a win might spur new leagues. However, the positive side of a win might actually come true, with MLS suffering in ways that detract both players and fans, despite what metrics indicate the league is growing in popularity and value. It’s also possible the parties reach a settlement.