A federal judge in Puerto Rico last week rejected RICO ( Right to Know ) claims against FIFA, which the Puerto Rico Soccer League ( PRSL ) claims are intended to illegally suppress economic competition on the island, as well as tortious interference with a contract, abuse of process, and breach of fiduciary duty under Puerto Rico law.
However, U.S. District Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach denied FIFA’s request to dismiss PRS L’s competitive claim, leaving the case with the events to proceed through pretrial discovery, where they will testify and exchange information.
Last year PRSL and others sued FIFA, the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football ( CONCACAF ), the Federación Puertorriqueña de Fútbol ( FPF ) and additional parties for allegedly “maintaining monopoly sanctioning power” and utilizing “exclusive control over access” to league tournaments in Puerto Rico.

PRSL runs and promotes LigaPro sport competitions and matches. PRSL likewise operated Puerto Rico’s top football club, Liga Superior, from 2018 until 2019, when PRSL claims FPF—the FIFA-sanctioned governing system of football in Puerto Rico —” caused its unwarranted and unexpected closing”. Due to its intention to run a rival group, FPF reportedly acted to restrict competition.
As explained in Arias-Marxuach’s mind, PRSL says it heard from a FIFA-connected administrative in 2019 regarding “purported programs by some FIFA-affiliated groups in Puerto Rico to join in an unsanctioned occasion”. PRSL was informed that FIFA” you taking actions against people that participate in a game that was not authorized.”
The defendants are accused of engaging in a “pattern of criminal action” by supposedly defrauding the claimants of money by using lies and false representations. The alleged scheme included “false, false and misleading claims” concerning the power of FIFA, CONCACAF and FPF to exclude the plaintiffs. Additionally, the issue makes mention of alleged banks wires and money transfers to further the alleged plan.
Additionally, the problem presents an antitrust idea that the defendants are engaged in in “unreasonably control business in Puerto Rico” and “cease withholding its sanctions of group tournaments and events in Puerto Rico from Plaintiff PRSL.”
In court papers the accused flatly deny any wrong. The defendants ‘ claims that FIFA’s international governing body had no bearing in the alleged do at issue are untrue. FIFA notes that it “does not define FPF’s activities or management, exercise decision-making power on behalf of FPF, or participate in the management of FPF’s matters”. According to FIFA, the plaintiffs have attempted to entice FIFA into a dispute in which it is not involved.

Arias-Marxuach determined the plaintiffs ‘ RICO claims against FIFA, as well as claims under Puerto Rico law, must be dismissed. The plaintiffs failed to persuade the judge that the court has exclusive jurisdiction over those claims, which would leave the court with a sufficient amount of nexus to the dispute to enable it to resolve it.
The judge explained that FPF and its employees are the subject of the RICO allegations. Those officials are depicted as misstating rules, filing “fraudulent complaints” and lying about their roles and relationship to CONCACAF. Yet those allegations do not, Arias-Marxuach underscored, accuse FIFA of specific conduct violating RICO. Instead, the allegations are generalized and tied to group activity. Thus, the plaintiffs omitted to explain “how FPF Defendants ‘ RICO violations arose from or are related to FIFA’s in-forum contacts.” The same error was made clear with the Puerto Rico law claims: They are too generalized in terms of alleged FIFA behavior to advance.
But Arias-Marxuach determined the court will hear the antitrust claims. The judge acknowledged that there is only a limited relationship between FIFA and Puerto Rico. FIFA “has no office, mailing address, or phone number in Puerto Rico” and “is not registered to do business in Puerto Rico”. FIFA also lacks “any real property interest” on the island and does not “pay income taxes, hold accounts, keep books, or maintain records in Puerto Rico”.
Still, the judge emphasized, FIFA has “deliberately reached” into Puerto Rico in two key ways that make the association vulnerable to defending the antitrust claim. One way is to grant FPF the power to act as its local sanctioning body. According to that authority, FPF would” sanction” soccer organizations and tournaments in Puerto Rico as long as they adhere to FIFA regulations. The second way: FIFA “repeatedly contacting FPF” to urge it to enforce FIFA rules. In addition to these contacts, FPF was asked to meet with FIFA personnel in San Juan, issued a follow-up letter with both directives and threats of penalties for noncompliance, and encouraged FPF to uphold FIFA policy in Puerto Rico.

Arias-Marxuach also refused to dismiss the antitrust claim for being, FIFA contends, too conclusory and imprecise in explaining how FIFA was part of a so-called conspiracy. The judge reasoned that the plaintiffs are challenging a specific FIFA policy—namely,” the rule that all league tournaments must be sanctioned by the National Association in whose territory the match will be played” —and how confederations, national associations, leagues, clubs, referees, players and others must comply with that policy. Although the judge determined the claim was sufficiently stated to advance past a motion to dismiss, whether PRSL can actually prove that remains to be seen.
At any time, FIFA and PRSL could reach a deal. Relevent Sports, which is owned by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross and organizes and promotes soccer events in the United States, settled an antitrust case earlier this year in the Southern District of New York. That blessing would be through FIFA member U. S. Soccer, the governing body of soccer in the U. S. and which remains a defendant in the litigation. U. S. District Judge Valerie Caproni is currently reviewing U. S. Soccer’s motion to dismiss Relevent Sports ‘ amended complaint.