profbank.bsky.social
Professor of Law at UCLA. Posts are primarily about sports law, but may be about tax or corporate law. Posts are not legal advice
132 posts
520 followers
271 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
OCSC, Louden, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay etc are more of the ones I was thinking about
comment in response to
post
US Soccer has already sanctioned two DI leagues in women's soccer with NWSL and USL-Super League, but both are finding that soccer's big difference with other American sports is the robust competition from leagues abroad. That is even more true in men's soccer.
comment in response to
post
If USL does succeed in getting a D1 sanction for its new league and American sports league precedent holds to form, the eventual result of competition between MLS and the new USL league would be a merger (a la NFL/AFL, NBA/ABA, AL/NL, NHL/WHA)
comment in response to
post
Hmmm. Let me try that again
www.cnbc.com/2025/02/10/t...
comment in response to
post
This new Cosmos apparel release was surely planned long ago, but the fact that it came out the same day as the NASL statement feels like Commisso has switched to revenue generation after years of losses on the legal case
www.soccerbible.com/lifestyle/cl...
comment in response to
post
It's a technical issue and requires expert economic testimony about the substitutability of products etc. NASL used Roger Noll from Stanford, the same expert Kessler used and lost with in the Fraser v. MLS case. 3/3
comment in response to
post
Establishing evidence of a "relevant market" where defendants have power to harm competition is a threshold question in all antitrust cases, so it was no surprise that it came up here. The fact that teams, players, owners, etc all moved between divisions made the D1/D2 distinction vulnerable 2/
comment in response to
post
Once the relevant market is not established, then it doesn't matter whether there was a conspiracy to restrain trade since they haven't proven there was power to harm, which is why the verdict form directed the jury to skip the rest of the questions after answering no to this one
comment in response to
post
My guess is that the jury was unconvinced that D1 and D2 US pro soccer leagues were actual markets given that fans/sponsors/players can freely go to other soccer leagues, other sports leagues, other countries' leagues, or other entertainment generally 3/
comment in response to
post
Under antitrust law, defining the relevant market is a critical part of the proof to establish that the defendant could have harmed the plaintiffs and must include all interchangeable products. 2/
comment in response to
post
I would be somewhat surprised if this is the actual "finish" line. It seems like there will be an appeal regardless of the jury verdict. The parties have already filed written motions to renew oral ones made in court so as to preserve them as grounds for a possible future appeal.
comment in response to
post
Yes. He testified a week ago on Jan 23
comment in response to
post
I should add that the judge can defer decision on the judgment as a matter of law motion until after the verdict, and the moving party can renew the motion after the verdict (asking for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) within 10 days after the jury verdict.
comment in response to
post
There's a lot more, but that gives you a taste. The judge can either reject the JMOL completely or grant it with respect to one or more claims (e.g., the D2 claims, but not the D1 claims). 7/7
comment in response to
post
NASL also notes that its request for a three year runway was denied on the spot by Gulati without a vote, which is a little different than the USSF/MLS version of how this went down 6/
comment in response to
post
Here are a few examples of the evidence on the USSF-MLS relationship from trial that NASL cites 5/
comment in response to
post
NASL argues that there was evidence of concerted action (e.g., USSF treated NASL differently on waivers, only began enforcing PLS when NASL needed them, SUM agreement, and Gulati hand-picked the board members). 4/
comment in response to
post
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/
comment in response to
post
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/
comment in response to
post
NASL has filed its opposition to the defendants' motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law 1/
comment in response to
post
There's a lot more in the brief, but I'll stop now and return to this thread (or start a new one) later when NASL files its response. 11/11
comment in response to
post
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/
comment in response to
post
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/
comment in response to
post
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/