Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—2d Cir.: Rulings against NASL in professional soccer antitrust dispute affirmed on appeal, (May 20, 2026)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

"At trial, NASL proffered four relevant markets. The jury found that NASL failed to prove any of them."

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City has affirmed the judgment and post-judgment orders dismissing the North American Soccer League, LLC’s (NASL) antitrust suit against United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (USSF). The antitrust claims arose from USSF’s agreement to adopt and enforce Professional League Standards allegedly to exclude NASL and preserve Major League Soccer’s position in men’s top-tier and second-tier professional soccer in the United States. NASL argued that it was not required to prove a relevant market to sustain its claims under the Sherman Act. Because NASL previously proposed and endorsed the legal framework it challenged, the argument was waived. Furthermore, the district court did not err in requiring proof of a relevant market under the rule of reason. Both Section 1 and 2 claims required NASL to show actual harm to consumers in the relevant markets. Finally, the court found that any purported evidentiary error did not warrant reversal (N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., No. 25-1225-cv (2d Cir. May 19, 2026)).

Background. USSF is a non-profit private membership organization affiliated with FIFA, an international soccer body that runs the World Cup and, through its regional affiliates, other major tournaments. Through this affiliation, USSF asserts the authority to regulate and oversee professional soccer in this country.

U.S. Soccer member leagues must meet the applicable on Professional League Standards (PLS) or receive waivers to be sanctioned as a D1, D2, or D3 league by U.S. Soccer. NASL was founded as a men’s professional soccer league in 2009, after a number of USL (MLS’s minor-league affiliate) teams decided to break away from USL and form a separate league with D1 ambitions. In 2009, both NASL and USL were seeking D2 league sanctions. The Board ordered NASL and USL’s teams to play together in a joint USSF-run D2 league in 2010.

NASL brought an antitrust action against the USSF, alleging that its power to determine the requirements that leagues must meet in order to be part of Division I or II protected the monopoly position of its commercial business partner, MLS, in the relevant market for top tier U.S. and Canada men’s professional soccer leagues, in violation of the Sherman Act.

A Brooklyn district court denied NASL’s motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that NASL failed to demonstrate concerted action, as required for a Sherman Act Section 1 unreasonable restraint of trade claim. Though the court denied the preliminary injunction, it held that NASL had demonstrated irreparable harm. The Second Circuit affirmed and remanded for further adjudication on the merits. In February, the district court ordered the complaint dismissed on the merits following a jury verdict against NASL. On May 6, 2025, NASL's motion for a new trial was denied.

Law of the case. The circuit court found that the law of the case required that the alleged conduct of MLS and USSF be evaluated according to a full rule of reason analysis. Here, the district court had denied NASL's motion for a preliminary injunction on November 4, 2017; that denial was appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed the district court's denial on February 23, 2018. In its denial, the Second Circuit ruled that the full rule of reason analysis must be applies, and not the abbreviated "quick look" approach. Although this decision pertained to the granting (or, in this case, the denial) of an injunction, it addressed "pure issue of law that cannot be impacted by further development of the record" and therefore was binding precedent for the case.

And because a rule of reason analysis was required, NASL needed to show a relevant market, which NASL had contended was not necessary for it to prove in order to win its case. Having not effectively disputed the law of the case requiring a rule of reason analysis by failing to object to MLS and USSF's proposal that proof of a relevant market was required, NASL had waived its argument regarding the jury instruction on proving a relevant market.

Moreover, a rule of reason analysis requires proof of "actual harm to consumers in the relevant market" and "proof of monopoly power or a dangerous probability of achieving it within a relevant market." These were not adequately proven at trial.

New trial. The circuit court also affirmed the district court's denial of NASL's new trial motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that NASL had waived its arguments regarding the relevant market. Here, because the rule of reason analysis was the law of the case, NASL would need to prove a relevant market at any new trial, which NASL would not be able to do because it had earlier waived its relevant market argument.

The Case is No. 25-1225-cv.

Judge: Jacobs, D.

Attorneys: Jeffrey L. Kessler (Winston & Strawn LLP) for North American Soccer League, LLC. Samir Deger-Sen (Latham & Watkins LLP) for United States Soccer Federation, Inc.

Companies: North American Soccer League, LLC; United States Soccer Federation, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews GCNNews