US Soccer & MLS also discount NASL's arguments about disparate treatment over waivers, suggesting that the context and nature of the requests were different. 8/
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
US Soccer & MLS also contend that MLS owners' Soccer United Marketing deal with US Soccer is not evidence of a conspiracy, arguing that it is consistent with independent conduct. 9/
There is an interesting tidbit in the brief on the alleged conspiracy involving USL against NASL staying at D2. Apparently, the 2013 deal with USL for MLS reserve teams to play there gave the latter a right to share in expansion fees, but it expired long before NASL's D2 decision 10/
The short version of NASL's response is simply that if there were legitimate issues of fact for the jury at the summary judgment stage (where the court rejected USSF/MLS' motion), there still are here. 2/
That's a fair response, since the JMOL is basically a SJ motion made after the case is presented to the jury rather than before. Of course, parties make both motions all the time, but evidence can break down at trial and, in this case, a different judge denied the SJ motion. 3/
Comments