Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Jury finds against NASL in professional soccer antitrust dispute, (Feb 4, 2025)
Organizations Mentioned:Major League Soccer
By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.
Curative instruction was necessary after jury heard plaintiff's counsel's characterization having "zero foundation in the record" regarding witness who had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights during video testimony.
A federal district court judge in Brooklyn, New York has signed a judgment dismissing a case after a jury verdict in favor of the governing body for professional soccer in the United States and its member soccer league. A different soccer league that had been a member of the governing body brought an antitrust suit against the governing body and the other league. Following trial, the jury found that the alleged relevant antitrust markets were not proven to exist, and therefore, no antitrust law violations were proven (North American Soccer League, LLC v. United States Soccer Federation, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-05495-HG (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2025)).
Background. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) is the recognized international governing body of professional soccer; it oversees major tournaments, including the World Cup. FIFA regulates the sport through international affiliate organizations. The United States Soccer Federation, Inc. (USSF) holds FIFA's exclusive designation as the governing body for soccer in the United States. The USSF designates various soccer leagues at various divisional levels.
Major League Soccer, LLC (MLS) is a soccer league that controls a majority of the voting power on the USSF Professional Council. The North American Soccer League, LLC (NASL) had been sanctioned to play in the USSF's Division II, but had then been excluded from that division. NASL's control of the voting power on the USSF Professional Council was less than seven percent.
NASL filed an antitrust lawsuit against USSF and MLS, contending that the two acted in concert to exclude NASL from competing not only in the USSF's Division II, but in the higher-ranked Division I in which NASL contends it should qualify to play, and of which non-party United Soccer League (USL) is the only member. NASL alleged, among other things, that the concerted actions of USSF and MLS have caused not only its preclusion from conducting expanded operations in the United States and Canada, but also the attritioning of soccer team clubs from its ranks to join MLS; at the time the Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 16, 2018, NASL had only four member clubs remaining.
NASL's complaint asserted that MLS and USSF have escalated standards for Division I membership "to increase the barriers to entry and protect MLS from competition with other professional leagues." These escalated standards include (1) minimum number of teams in the league; (2) playing pitch field dimensions; (3) minimum market size; and (4) minimum net worth of individual owners. NASL also disputed the necessity of the requirement that the Division I leagues operate in at least three time zones within the continental United States.
The jury verdict. Following much contention over the admissibility of evidence, a lengthy jury trial was held; during the trial there were also disputes over what the jury instructions should be. Rulings from the bench disposed of these disputes, and on February 3, 2025, the jury began and completed its deliberations.
The jury found that NASL failed to prove the existence of antitrust markets for (1) sanctions for men's professional soccer teams in the United States and Canada to play in USSF Division I; and (2) team membership in a Division I United States and Canada men's professional soccer league. Having so found, it was unnecessary for the jury to address whether the NASL proved any conspiracies, monopolizations, injuries, or damages with respect to USSF's Division I.
Likewise, the jury found that NASL failed to prove the existence of similar antitrust markets with respect to USSF's Division II, thereby obviating any need to address conspiracies, monopolizations, injuries, or damages in connection thereto. The judge promptly signed and filed the judgment form reading: "Upon the jury's verdict in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, the case is dismissed on the merits, and plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendants."
The case is No. 1:17-cv-05495-HG
Judge: Gonzalez, H.
News: Antitrust NewYorkNews