Can the NASL take a free ride on what MLS has built?

Posted on October 29, 2017 by Beau Dure

Hold your horses, MLS haters. This is an actual question in NASL v USSF.

Steven Peterson, an economist who specializes in part in antitrust issues, is a U.S. Soccer expert witness in this case. He bases part of his response (p. 22-26) to NASL expert witness Stefan Szymanski on the concept of “free riding” — basically, having one entity take advantage of resources created by another, thus diminishing those resources. Investopedia ties that concept to the “tragedy of the commons,” something we all slept through in grad school.

Szymanski argues that U.S. Soccer can’t accuse anyone of “free riding” because their mission as a nonprofit is to create that rising tide that lifts all boats.

szy-free-ride

On first glance, I thought Szymanski had a good point. But now I see two problems with it:

It’s not U.S. Soccer’s job to allow one commercial entity to free-ride off another. In fact, it’s USSF’s job to prevent that. (Peterson actually explains all that.)
The “tragedy of the commons” analogy holds true here. The classic example is green space overgrazed by livestock until there’s nothing left. In soccer terms, that would be having too many entities dividing up the same small market.

Whether that’s enough of an argument to outweigh other antitrust concerns, I don’t know. I’m starting to wonder if USSF really wants one and only Division I league — call it a conspiracy if you like, or call it a legitimate “tragedy of the commons” concern — but can’t say so because of antitrust law.

pro soccer

Timeline: How did NASL-USSF dispute come to this?

Posted on October 24, 2017October 28, 2017 by Beau Dure

(This WILL be revised and updated. Suggestions welcome.)

I’ve read many of the court filings in the NASL-USSF lawsuit and U.S. Soccer Board of Directors minutes dating back to 2011. A few other sources are mentioned here and there.

So here’s a timeline of what I was able to reconstruct, plus a few explainers:

WHO’S WHO:

Sunil Gulati: Seriously? Google. USSF president since 2006, VP for six years before that, former Kraft Soccer (New England Revolution) employee, one of the founders of Major League Soccer but dismissed by original commissioner Doug Logan.

Dan Flynn: USSF CEO/Secretary General. Basically, top paid employee on the org chart. Had a heart transplant in April 2016.

Carlos Cordeiro: Retired from Goldman Sachs in the early 2000s. Elected as an independent director (someone not affiliated with youth, adult or pro) to the USSF Board of Directors in 2007, then unseated Mike Edwards to become vice president in 2016.

Linda Cardenas: Executive assistant at USSF since 2011.

Mike Edwards: Long-serving USSF vice president (replaced Gulati when he became president in until election loss in 2016.

John Motta: Former USSF vice president (defeated Gulati in 1998, then lost rematch in 2000). Adult Council rep to USSF Board since 2013. President of U.S. Adult Soccer, which governs soccer in the USA that is neither youth nor pro. (Though a few pro teams play in USASA-affiliated leagues.)

Alec Papadakis: USL CEO since 2009. Pro Council rep to USSF Board in 2015 and 2016.

Aaron Davidson: Former chairman of NASL and former president of Traffic Sports. Pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy and wire-fraud conspiracy charges in October 2016.

Bill Peterson: NASL commissioner from 2012 to January 2017. One of the key figures in repositioning NASL as unlikely standard-bearer of traditional soccer, including promotion/relegation (though never making concrete proposal), and insisting upon NASL’s Division I ambitions.

Rishi Sehgal: NASL executive now serving as interim commissioner.

Jeffrey Kessler: High-powered sports lawyer who has been very successful in landmark cases in other sports. In soccer, he represented the U.S. women for a short period in their labor dispute with the USSF and unsuccessfully led MLS players in lawsuit challenging league’s single-entity model from 1997 to 2002.

Mark Frisch: Former Jacksonville Armada (NASL) owner

Brian Helmick: San Francisco Deltas (NASL) CEO

Rocco Commisso: Bought New York Cosmos in early 2017. Had promising relationship with Gulati (both tied to Columbia University) but is now leading figure in several actions against USSF.

WHAT’S WHAT:

BOD: U.S. Soccer Board of Directors

D1, D2, D3: Division I, Division II and Division III

PLS: Pro League Standards, developed and administered by U.S. Soccer, voted on by BOD (those affected generally recuse themselves from vote). See the 2014 (current) version; a 2015 draft revision was not approved.

PLS Task Force: Meets to discuss PLS. Current composition.

Pro League Task Force: Examines each pro league and recommends to the BOD whether or not to renew their annual sanctions as D1, D2, D3. The BOD doesn’t always take their recommendations. Current composition.

USSF D2: A stopgap league in 2010, when teams were splitting from the USL and forming NASL.

Traffic Sports: Marketing firm that once ran four NASL teams and was later at epicenter of FIFA/CONCACAF investigation. See Aaron Davidson.

CITATIONS

Gulati Dec: Sunil Gulati’s declaration in support of U.S. Soccer’s reply to NASL lawsuit. This is cited a lot because so much of it establishes a timeline.

Ex (1, 2, 3 …): Exhibits from U.S. Soccer’s reply. Some of these are also in the NASL’s filing and are noted as such.

BOD Minutes: U.S. Soccer Board of Directors Minutes

TIMELINE

Pre-history: In 1993, the USSF awarded Division I sanctioning to the group that devised Major League Soccer. That group includes then-USSF president Alan Rothenberg, who was elected with the mandate of solidifying the USA’s 1994 World Cup organizing efforts and forming a Division I league. The vote was not unanimous — MLS got 18 votes, the existing second-division APSL got five, the rule-changing League One America got zero.

In 1995, the USSF came up with a set of Professional League Standards that would remain in place until 2008.

The APSL remained Division II and eventually merged with the USISL, a fast-expanding league that operated two tiers of pro soccer (D2 and D3) along with an amateur league now called the PDL. The USISL later simplified its name to the USL. The league briefly experiments with promotion and relegation but backed away because more teams were “self-relegating” for economic reasons. Founder Francisco Marcos sells shares in the league to Umbro, which ends up with 94% of the league before Umbro itself is sold to Nike, which inherits ownership of the league in early 2008.

Full histories of the USISL/USL: Philly Soccer Page, Inside MN Soccer.

Sept. 24, 2008 – BOD Minutes: BOD approves new PLS.

Throughout 2008 – The Team Owners Association (TOA) forms among several disgruntled team owners in the USL. The leaders include Aaron Davidson (Miami FC and Traffic Sports) and Jeff Cooper, a St. Louis attorney who had been trying to bring MLS to St. Louis, was on the board at English club Brentford and was launching St. Louis Athletica in Women’s Professional Soccer.

Aug. 27, 2009 – (See sources above): Nike sells the USL to NuRock Soccer Holdings, led by Rob Hoskins and Alec Papadakis. The move is a shocker — the league had seemed all but sold to Cooper.

Nov. 10, 2009 – Goal.com report: Atlanta Silverbacks, Carolina RailHawks, Miami FC, Minnesota Thunder, Montreal Impact, a not-yet-playing St. Louis team and Vancouver Whitecaps announce plans to split from USL. The new league applies for D2 status.

Nov. 21, 2009 – BOD Minutes: Nothing is mentioned about the league split, though the BOD did have an executive session. MLS’ D1 status is renewed, WPS’ women’s D1 status is renewed with conditions, and the BOD hears updates on the Major Indoor Soccer League (not yet part of USL), USL1 (D2) and USL2 (D3).

Jan. 8, 2010 – Soccer America: With neither the NASL or the remaining USL clubs convincing USSF to award them D2 status, the Federation takes the unusual step of running its own league, brokering a one-year deal to take the nine NASL-leaning clubs and three USL-leaning clubs into the short-lived-by-design USSF D2 league. The breakaway teams have already seen some changes — Atlanta is on hiatus, Minnesota is under new management, and FC Tampa Bay and Crystal Palace Baltimore have joined in.

Feb. 5, 2010 – BOD Minutes: USSF update on plans for the USSF D2 league AND plans to appoint a blue-ribbon panel to review the PLS. The plan: In May through July, visit teams to make sure they’re meeting D2 minimum standards AND publish new standards. At August BOD meeting, evaluate new applicants for D2.

May 20, 2010 – Brian Quarstad (IMS): Crystal Palace Baltimore in deep trouble. St. Louis, with former NASL interim commissioner Jeff Cooper at the helm, in deeper.

May 27, 2010 – Soccer America: Saint Louis Athletica, sister team to AC St. Louis, folds midseason, sending players like Hope Solo and Shannon Boxx into a dispersal draft.

Aug. 10, 2010: BOD Minutes: “President Gulati updated the Board on a meeting with all of the D2 team owners and the proposal to change the D2 Professional League Standards. President Gulati informed the Board that the proposed D2 Professional League Standards had been proposed by the Blue Ribbon Professional League Standards Task Force and that the proposed standards had been reviewed with the D2 owners. It was MOVED to adopt the revised D2 Professional League Standards. The motion PASSED.”

See the standards. At the time, I thought they were designed to keep anyone from playing D2. But the NASL embraced them.

Nov. 21, 2010: BOD Minutes: MLS renewed as D1, WPS renewed as D1 with conditions. USL PRO accepted as D3. NASL not mentioned (executive session?) but received provisional D2 sanction. (See Brian Quarstad story below — Jan. 25.)

Jan. 19, 2011 – St. Louis Post Dispatch: AC St. Louis officially folds.

Jan. 20, 2011 – NASL statement: USSF BOD withdraws provisional D2 sanctioning because of failures to comply with standards. Losing St. Louis probably didn’t help. (No minutes posted for BOD meeting, which likely means entire meeting was executive session.)

Jan. 25, 2011 – Ex 13: Brian Quarstad (IMSoccer News) talks with Aaron Davidson after USSF withdrew D2 sanction (for now.)

February 2011 – Ex 14: NASL D2 application.

Feb. 11, 2011 – BOD Minutes: USL Pro gets a waiver because four of its 15 teams will be outside USA. No mention of NASL, but see next day.

Feb. 12, 2011 – Brian Quarstad confirms: NASL gets provisional D2 sanctioning for 2011.

March 28, 2011 – David Downs, an industry veteran with ABC, Univision and the USA World Cup Bid Committee, named NASL commissioner. (Aaron Davidson is CEO.)

April 2011 – NASL begins first season as an independent D2 league. Continuing from USSF D2: Carolina RailHawks, NSC Minnesota Stars, Fort Lauderdale Strikers (formerly Miami FC), Montreal Impact, Puerto Rico Islanders, FC Tampa Bay. New: FC Edmonton. Returning from one-year hiatus: Atlanta Silverbacks. Gone: Austin Aztex (moved to Orlando), Vancouver Whitecaps (moved to MLS along with fellow D2 club Portland Timbers), Crystal Palace Baltimore, AC St. Louis.

March 3, 2012 – Brian Quarstad: NASL gets full Division II sanctioning at USSF Annual General Meeting. Only one change for 2012 season: Montreal moves to MLS, replaced by San Antonio Scorpions. Minnesota is renamed Minnesota United. FC Tampa Bay reclaims the Rowdies name.

June 10, 2012 – Neil Morris (2015 story, WRAL Sports Fan): With half its clubs either owned by Traffic Sports or propped up by the league, Downs and NASL owners sit down for a meeting with MLS officials, with whom they had been negotiating for months for an affiliation partnership. NASL chairman Davidson says NASL is walking away from negotiations.

June 12, 2012 – New York Cosmos join NASL for 2013. The brand name had been dormant from 1985 until 2010, property of one Peppe Pinton. When Pinton sold the club name, it relaunched and played an exhibition game with a team of guest players. Saudi company Sela Sport bought the team in 2011 and negotiated with MLS but opted instead for the NASL.

Oct. 5, 2012 – Downs resigns as NASL commissioner.

Nov. 27, 2012 – Brian Quarstad: Bill Peterson — like MLS commissioner Don Garber, a veteran of NFL Europe and then a member of the MLS Board of Governors — officially announced as NASL commissioner.

Dec. 1, 2012 – BOD Minutes: MLS, NASL, USL all get renewals at D1/D2/D3 without incident. Minutes say MLS had “waiver,” NASL had “waivers.” USL waivers not mentioned. PLS also being reviewed because USSF is trying to launch women’s league (NWSL).

Feb. 17, 2013: BOD Minutes: NASL gets waiver on number of teams for 2013 spring season only. Puerto Rico was taking a one-year hiatus, dropping the league to seven teams until the Cosmos started for the fall season.

Nov. 18, 2013 – Ex 9: Flynn memo to leagues on PLS (includes draft standards) – also NASL Ex 34.

Nov. 27, 2013 – Ex 10: NASL response to Flynn letter. Peterson’s four points are: Letters of Credit (says the dollar figure is too high), Roster Limitations (unclear what he’s asking), Reserve Leagues (seeking clarification), Pro/Rel (can we talk about it?). Gulati notes Peterson did NOT challenge time-zone standard.

Dec. 8, 2013 – BOD Minutes: Gulati says PLS Task Force has sent new draft to teams for review. Also, all four pro leagues’ sanctions renewed. MLS gets waivers on field size and coaching licenses. NWSL gets waivers on field size and stadium seating. USL gets waiver on field size. No NASL waiver mentioned.

Feb. 28, 2014 – BOD Minutes: USSF Board approves new PLS. Also, BOD resolves dispute between MLS and NASL on apportionment of Pro Council votes. MLS gets 9, NWSL 3, NASL 1, USL 1. This resolution good for only one year.

April 12, 2014 – NASL season kicks off with 10 teams. Indy Eleven (with former Chicago Fire GM and USSF Board member Peter Wilt as president) and Ottawa Fury are the new teams.

December 7, 2014 – BOD Minutes: Little discussion at annual renewal — all four leagues renewed, subject to waivers. Also, Gulati asks Pro Council to meet again to discuss voting apportionment.

Feb. 13, 2015 – BOD Minutes: Garber presents unspecified allocation of Pro Council votes. Board accepts.

Feb. 23, 2015 – Ex 15: Peterson letter to Gulati thanking him for meeting and expressing desire for more pub from USSF PR department, also saying he wants NASL to play at highest level

Feb. 24, 2015 – Ex 16: Gulati response – thanks Bill, talk soon

April 4, 2015 – NASL goes to 11. New season includes 10 returning teams plus Jacksonville Armada.

May 20, 2015 – Ex 20-21: USA indicts a whole lot of people, including several from Traffic (and Traffic itself). Among them: Aaron Davidson.

May 31, 2015 – Ex 17: NASL glossy presentation for D1 (BOD meeting that day, but not mentioned in minutes)

June 24, 2015 – Ex 12: Flynn memo to leagues on PLS (includes draft of 2015 standards). This is controversial one. It would’ve raised minimum number of teams at inception from 12 to 16 (D1) and 8 to 12 (D2).

July 23, 2015 – Ex 18: Kessler warning shot to Gulati, Flynn and PLS Task Force

July 27, 2015 – Ex 19: USSF counsel Lisa Levine rips Kessler but still offers to move forward and talk.

Sept. 30, 2015 – Gulati Dec: USSF meets Kessler and NASL. Much reiteration of positions. Also, USSF presses NASL on Traffic.

Oct. 29-30, 2015 – Ex 22-23: Back and forth traffic between USSF to NASL about Traffic

Oct. 30, 2015 – Ex 24: Peterson to USSF with a plan to get D1 status now and comply with D1 standards by 2026, and oh by the way, antitrust.

Nov. 6, 2015 – Ex 25: USSF to NASL – OK, we’ll call that an application for waivers, and by the way, Traffic.

Nov. 10, 2015 – Ex 26: Peterson re: Traffic — we’re on it! Really! Get off our backs! And why didn’t USSF tell us Aaron Davidson was suspended by FIFA!

Nov. 11, 2015 – Ex 27: USSF to Peterson: You needed US to tell you about Davidson?

Nov. 15, 2015 – Ex 28: Rishi Sehgal, then the NASL director of business development and legal affairs, on Traffic

Nov. 20, 2015 – Ex 29: NASL provides 2015 annual report. Requests waivers from D2 standards while also applying for D1

Nov. 23, 2015 – Ex 30: Peterson to Flynn, demanding to press D1 case to Board and Task Force

Nov. 24-Dec. 1, 2015 – Ex 31-33: Some wrangling over a USSF/NASL meeting because the threat of litigation is looming

Dec. 5, 2015 – Gulati Dec: Pro League Task Force of Cordeiro, Mike Edwards and Dan Flynn meets with NASL and counsel

Dec. 6, 2015 – BOD Minutes: All four pro leagues approved, subject to waivers.

Dec. 8, 2015 – Ex 34: Pro League Task Force to NASL: Thanks for meeting with us Dec. 5. Look, we’re still concerned about Traffic and your stadia.

Dec. 21, 2015 – Ex 35: Kessler to Pro League Task Force: Quit whining about Traffic. Footnote: Hey, you don’t want us to talk about Gulati’s relationships with Jack Warner and everyone else, do you? Here’s your requested info about Traffic, and you’d better discuss our D1 application at the next Board meeting in January.

Jan. 5, 2016 – Ex 36: Russell Sauer of Latham and Watkins to Kessler: Thanks for the info about Traffic. Where’s the rest of the league info you promised? If you want to make a presentation to the Board on Jan. 13, fine — let us know who’s coming by Jan. 7.

Jan. 13, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Board meeting. NASL states D1 case. Must be executive session, because there’s no mention of NASL on the BOD Minutes.

Jan. 15, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF asks NASL for more info

Jan. 21, 2016 – Ex 37: Rishi Sehgal on behalf of Peterson, to Flynn and everyone else: OK, we met — now can we move this along and get D1? The delay is unlawful.

Jan. 25, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF tells NASL the Board will talk about D1 application at next meeting in March

Feb. 29, 2016 – USSF Annual General Meeting, notable for independent director Carlos Cordeiro winning three-way race for VP.

March 3, 2016 – Ex 38: Peterson to Cordeiro: Congratulations! Now will you please either quit making divisional assignments or give us D1?

March 8, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF Board meets and rejects D1 status for NASL. BOD Minutes again have no mention of this, though they mention an update on USL’s application for D2 status. Also, Flynn gives update on pro futsal league.

March 9, 2016 – Ex 39: Cordeiro to Sehgal (please forward to Peterson): Thanks, but I don’t appreciate this sort of lobbying.

March 10, 2016 – Ex 40: Cardenas to Peterson: Non-recused members of the Board (non-recused) have non-recusedly agreed to non-recusedly not give your league D1 sanction, non-recusedly. USSF is still willing to help NASL get to D1 someday, non-recusedly. (Also NASL Ex 41)

April 2, 2016 – NASL kicks off spring season, still with 11 teams. San Antonio and Atlanta were out. A new Miami FC and Rayo OKC, affiliated with Spanish club Rayo Vallecano, join. Puerto Rico FC joins for the fall season to round it up to 12.

April 28, 2016 – BOD Minutes: Short teleconference with two orders of business, the second being to replace Flynn on the Pro League Task Force “because of a pending application.” Brian Remedi is named to replace him, and Cordeiro is named chair.

May 19, 2016 – BOD Minutes: Application to have Puerto Rico play NASL is approved.

July 8, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF again asks NASL about Traffic

July 13, 2016 – Ex 41: Sehgal to Levine: Still working on separating Traffic’s investment

Summer 2016 – Gulati Dec 173-174: “Contrary to the intimation in the Complaint that the USSF was looking to destroy the NASL, I expended a lot of time and energy over the balance of 2016 in an effort to save the NASL — which was beginning to fall apart. // During the summer of 2016 I had several discussion with Bill Peterson, the NASL’s Commissioner, during which he sought to engage, not on the elimination of professional league classifications or the denial of Division I status, but rather on developing a path for the NASL to come into compliance with the existing Division I standards.”

Aug. 23, 2016 – Nipun Chopra/Four Four Two and NewsOK: Rayo OKC minority owner Sean Jones removes half of the team’s artificial turf. Suffice to say things weren’t going well.

Sept. 8, 2016 – Ex. 42: Peterson emails Cordeiro and Motta, copying Gulati, asking to engage with the Pro League Task Force in connection with the USSF Board meeting scheduled for Sept. 23.

Sept. 8, 2016 – Ex. 43: Cordeiro tells Peterson the next Board agenda is quite full, but if you’ve made progress, please let us know. Peterson’s response: “So, dialogue is not an option for NASL and soccer progression in usa, clearly pass/ fail? Disappointing. Same for everyone?” Gulati is not amused.

Sept. 21, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Gulati meets with reps from MLS, NASL and USL to sort out “issues and disagreements.” Then Tampa and Ottawa jump to USL.

Sept. 22, 2016 – Ex 44: Jacksonville owner Mark Frisch seeks meeting with Gulati, who agrees. Peterson was not copied on the email.

Sept. 23, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF Board meets. Talks about USL but no decision. This isn’t mentioned in BOD Minutes — must have been executive session.

Sept. 23-24, 2016 – Ex 45: Peterson emails Gulati to say “I believe this group of NASL owners will deliver what you’re looking for. We’re a long way removed from the breakaway and Aaron Davidson days.” Gulati: “Thanks Bill. Hopefully we can find a sensible way through the current situation.”

Sept. 26, 2016 – Did Frisch and Gulati meet? Frisch said he would bring other owners.

Fall 2016 – NASL in crisis. Gulati 181-182: Some teams going to USL (D3 pushing for D2), others stopped operating due to financial losses (which, Gulati says, would likely have been worse in D1). Gulati and others push to save the NASL and explore merger with USL. Then he helped bring in Commisso.

Oct. 25, 2016 – ESPN FC: Tampa Bay and Ottawa move from NASL to USL.

Nov. 2, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Gulati meets with a group of NASL owners.

Nov. 23, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Gulati in conference call with NASL owners to discuss expansion

Nov. 30, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Gulati meets with reps from NASL and USL, possibly to do another USSF D2 league. USL declines, “but not for my lack of trying.”

November 2016 – Ex 47: NASL provides Annual Report as part of application for D2 (not D1). Gulati Dec: Gulati says they acknowledged issues in Fort Lauderdale but not in New York.

Dec. 4, 2016 – Ex. 46: USL sends term sheet to NASL clubs — actually a response to one sent by Carolina, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Miami, Puerto Rico and San Francisco.

Dec. 5, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Pro League Task Force meets to consider all leagues. USL withdraws D2 request. NASL can’t nail down number of teams posting performance bonds, so Task Force holds D2 application in abeyance

Dec. 6, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USSF Board delays NASL discussion at NASL’s request. Also tables USL’s D2 application. Again, not mentioned in BOD Minutes, which only make vague reference to updates on MLS and NWSL.

Dec. 14, 2016 – Ex. 48: USSF to NASL, asking league to provide Pro League Task Force with a list of teams participating in 2017 and confirmation that they have posted performance bond.

Dec. 14, 2016 – Brian Straus (SI): Cosmos on the verge of accepting a private investor’s offer to buy brand and shut down the club.

Dec. 15, 2016 – NASL reply: SUM bids $5 million for Cosmos brand, rights to likenesses, etc., with agreement to shut it down for at least 10 years.

#NASL v. #USSF: SUM tried to acquire Cosmos for $5 million. Long night of reading ahead. pic.twitter.com/CJeTLhZXDM

— Miki Turner (@turneresq) October 24, 2017

Dec. 18, 2016 – Ex. 49: NASL says they have six. Maybe nine. And more than six talking for 2018!
– Gulati Dec: NASL asked for extension of Dec. 19 deadline to provide info; USSF pushes back to Dec. 28

Dec. 28, 2016 – Ex. 50: Helmick (SF Deltas) texts with Gulati and suggests collaborating and combining schedule with USL.

Dec. 28, 2016 – Ex. 51: NASL responds to inquiry. They have eight teams, including league-owned Jacksonville (what happened to Frisch?) and the Cosmos. Many waivers needed. (Gulati Dec also notes news reports saying Peterson likely out as commissioner.)

Dec. 29, 2016 – Gulati Dec: Pro League Task Force conference call. Gulati listens but doesn’t participate. Task Force tentatively decides not to recommend NASL for D2 for 2017.

Dec. 29, 2016 – Gulati Dec: USL files revised D2 application.

Dec. 30, 2016-Jan. 1, 2017 – Gulati Dec: Bunch of Pro League Task Force conference calls. Dec. 30 just USL, and Task Force tentatively decides not to recommend USL for D2. But then separate conference calls with both USL and NASL on the 31st. Gulati again listens in but doesn’t participate, as he also does Jan. 1, when the Task Force again recommends against D2 for either league.

Jan. 2, 2017 – Ex. 52: Gulati emails only the non-conflicted members of the Board (NOT Garber, Papadakis, Collins or Agoos, BUT Mattsson, Dr. Bob, Cordeiro, Ahrens, Cone, Flynn, Nunez, Harrell, Motta, Turney, Shalala) to tell them Task Force has unanimously recommended against D2 but reminding them it’s the Board’s call. Board meeting set for Jan. 6; meanwhile, Gulati and Flynn will keep working with leagues toward “our goal of promoting — in a stable way — the professional development of the sport below Division 1.”

Jan. 3, 2017 – Ex. 53: NASL (Sehgal) confirms it has finally terminated all relationships with Traffic.

Jan. 4, 2017 – Gulati Dec: NASL reps meet Gulati in NYC (some by phone). “(T)he NASL owners focused their energies on trying to convince me that, absent a Division II sanction, the league would disappear which would be bad for the sport.”

Jan. 5, 2017 – Gulati Dec: USL’s Papadakis meets (whom? Gulati?).

Jan. 6, 2017 – Gulati Dec: Pivotal Board meeting. Commisso, Brian Helmick (San Francisco Deltas), Steve Malik (North Carolina), Riccardo Silva (Miami) and others join call. Helmick, Gulati says, began presentation by saying Gulati has gone “above and beyond the call of duty” in trying to save the league. Then the vote in favor of D2 for USL and NASL, despite Task Force recommendation
– NASL has a separate exhibit (Ex 46)

Jan. 18, 2017 – Ex 54: USSF (Flynn) to NASL (Sehgal) reiterating what was discussed Jan. 13 — conditions under which NASL has received its D2, including a plan for moving forward, due March 15. (It does NOT include what Gulati Dec mentions from Board meeting, which is the requirement to meet D2 standards in 2018 unless specifically agreed to by USSF.)

Feb. 9, 2017 – BOD Minutes: Nothing mentioned on pro leagues aside from USL application for Canadian team (Ottawa) approved.

March 3, 2017 – BOD Minutes: Nothing on pro leagues other than NWSL describing A&E deal

March 25, 2017 – NASL season starts with eight teams. San Francisco is new. Minnesota is in MLS. Tampa Bay and Ottawa are in USL. Fort Lauderdale and Rayo OKC are gone.

June 8, 2017 – BOD Minutes: Again, nothing on pro leagues, though new committee assignments were approved in accordance with new bylaws requiring 3-5 people per committee.

July 26, 2017 – BOD Minutes: “Mr. Ahrens inquired as to the status of professional league standards review for the year and Mr. Gulati provided an update.”

Sometime in 2017 – Gulati Dec: USSF retains consultant Jeff L’Hote to verify info on USL and NASL meeting D2 standards.

Aug. 15, 2017 – Ex 55: Sehgal to USSF, application for 2018 divisional status. Notes two teams expected to be out (Edmonton, San Francisco), but the two California teams make it eight.
– Gulati Dec: USL’s application includes waivers for individual teams but NOT for the league as a whole — “Even if it dropped the teams needing waivers, it would still have more than enough teams to satisfy all Division II standards.”
– Also NASL Ex 49

Aug. 24, 2017 – Gulati Dec: Gulati and a staff member mediate dispute between NASL and ex-teams Tampa Bay and Ottawa.

Sept. 1, 2017 – Gulati Dec: Board meeting, with Board members currently affiliated with one of the professional leagues out of the room (so that’s Garber, Bocanegra?, Malik?). Sehgal says league is “reformulating a strategic plan.” Gulati’s words: “In other words, the NASL was working on a plan, but did not yet have one even though that was one of the conditions of the provisional Division II grant in January.”

Also of interest from Sept. 1 (Gulati Dec): “Mr. Commisso raised an issue of inter-league poaching (the USL recruiting teams from the NASL). In requesting the USSF’s assistance, and in direct contradiction to the NASL’s claims now, Mr. Commisso stated “We think you have the authority to change how each league operates, okay.”

Sept. 3, 2017: Ex 56: Flynn to Sehgal, confirming Board’s vote not to give NASL a 2018 D2 sanction (NASL neither met the standards nor had a definitive plan for getting there) but inviting league to reapply for D3 by Oct. 2. (Also Ex 57: Flynn to USL’s Papadakis saying Board has delayed decision on USL’s D2 application until Oct. 2, asking league to present plan for reducing the number of team waivers, currently 21 — presumably not 21 teams but 21 waivers)
– NASL has Flynn letter as Ex 50

NASL motion describes it as such: “On September 3, 2017, the anticompetitive plan was carried out. The USSF informed the NASL that it was being denied Division II status for the 2018 season, and that if it wanted to continue to play as a USSF-sanctioned league, it would have to apply for status as a Division III league. In contrast, the USSF has given USL a month to provide additional assurances to the USSF so it can obtain provisional sanctioning as the sole Division II league in 2018. While USL would have to receive a number of waivers from the Division II Professional League Standards to receive a Division II sanction—possibly as many as twenty—the NASL was denied the mere two waivers that it requested. There was thus no doubt that the transparent motive for the USSF’s actions was to eliminate the NASL as a viable competitor.”

Sept. 19, 2017: We go to court

Oct. 6-8, 2017: Ex 57: Email (no true copy presented) to Commisso and Sehgal offering to ask Board to reconsider D2 if it can demonstrate by Oct. 20 that it has eight economically viable, separately owned teams and provide by Nov. 20 a plan for getting to 12 by 2020. Commisso basically says, “Not interested in talking unless it’s part of a confidential settlement communication. Gulati responds by playing the Columbia card: “If you’d rather send me another email drafted by your lawyers, that’s up to you. If on the other hand, you want to see if two guys who love Columbia and the sport can address the NASL’s current needs, then I’m willing.”

OTHER USSF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Minutes of first USSF (USAFA) meeting: April 15, 1913
Ex 2: First articles of incorporation of USSF (USAFA), 1914
Ex 3: FIFA Rules on Amateurism and Professionalism, 1924 (included to demonstrate FIFA mandate that federation should govern both)
Ex 4: FIFA statutes, 1958
Ex 5: FIFA statutes, 2016
Ex 6: USSF bylaws, 2017
Ex 7: U.S. Olympic Committee bylaws, 2017
Ex 8: Pro League Standards, 1995
Ex 11: PLS, 2014
Ex 58: FIFA statement, 2008 (presented to show Statute 9 isn’t addressing closed leagues)
Ex 60: PLS, 2008
Ex 61: PLS, 2010
Ex 62: Chart summarizing PLS changes from 1995 to 2014

pro soccer

How the NASL can bring down Sunil Gulati (maybe)

Posted on October 20, 2017October 28, 2017 by Beau Dure

After reading the main text of U.S. Soccer’s response to the NASL complaint, I sat down to read Sunil Gulati’s “declaration.” Most of the 78 pages are dedicated to restating the main text, just in more detail, and stating much of the U.S. Soccer bylaws.

Add it all up, and Gulati makes a convincing case — on paper, at least — that the decisions on sanctioning leagues are made by Board members and Task Force members who are not affiliated with any pro leagues. They even disagree at times. In 2017, the Professional League Task Force (currently VP Carlos Cordeiro, CEO Dan Flynn and Paralympian Chris Ahrens, but I’m not sure that was the same group that voted) recommended against provisional Division 2 sanction for the NASL (and the USL) but that the Board (with Gulati, MLS commissioner Don Garber and anyone else associated with a current pro league recusing themselves) voted to grant those sanctions.

(The minutes for this Board meeting — Jan. 6, 2017 — are not currently on the USSF site. I’m inquiring.)

So — again, on paper — Gulati, Garber and company can’t just do whatever they want.

The task before NASL is to prove that Gulati pulls all the strings.

That’s much easier said than done.

The NASL could hammer away at Gulati for his role in bringing in independent directors for the Board. He’s on the Nominating and Governance Committee, along with Garber (chair), Youth Council rep Tim Turney, Athlete rep Angela Hucles and independent director Donna Shalala. Board minutes over the years show him giving reports on searches for independent directors.

Gulati has sought to diversify the Board in several ways — gender, ethnicity, background, etc. As far as I can find, no white man has ever been an independent director, though it’s a new-ish position. Is he also seeking people who’ll do what they think he wants? Hard to say, especially given this …

This morning 2-1 unacceptable For us in USSoccer more than a wake up call. Time for a revolution. Need a long term plan that is smart

— Donna E. Shalala (@DonnaShalala) October 11, 2017

(Yes, Shalala stands accused of falling asleep when the NASL made its big presentation Sept. 1. But, again, Lamar Hunt fell asleep when Doug Logan interviewed to be the first MLS commissioner, and Logan still got the job.)

On the other hand, the most recent Board addition is a banker named Lisa Carnoy, a trustee and board member at Columbia, where Gulati teaches. (But also where the soccer stadium is named for Rocco Commisso, someone Gulati was happy to welcome into the pro game as the Cosmos’ savior but is now calling for Gulati to step down every couple of days.)

But even if Gulati has managed to install three puppets as independent directors, along with an ally (Garber) as a Pro Council rep, it’ll be much more difficult to demonstrate how Gulati is somehow manipulating the Youth Council, Adult Council, Athlete Council and National Council to do exactly what he wants. A current Adult Council rep, John Motta, defeated Gulati in a VP election in 1998 and has made noise about running for the presidency.

The Legal Steves (Bank and Holroyd) will need to weigh in to tell me whether all this evidence is enough to fend off accusations of a USSF/MLS/SUM conspiracy from a legal point of view. The practical point of view might be another story. But this is going to court, and to me, the NASL will have a difficult time explaining to a judge that this is a conspiracy.

The other legal argument the NASL has in its pocket: Under U.S. law, U.S. Soccer (and by extension, FIFA) have no authority to regulate the pro game at all, even though we the NASL have said for years that they do. If this argument works, everything short of frogs and locusts rampaging down Fifth Avenue is possible. Maybe the USA would even get kicked out of the next World Cu- … oh, right. OK, the next Women’s World Cup.

A few other odds and ends from the USSF massive document dump:

Gulati depicts himself as someone who constantly tried to help the NASL. He makes several references to Brian Helmick of the San Francisco Deltas expressing his gratitude, which gives me an excuse to play the Beastie Boys:

The exhibits pile on the examples of Gulati personally intervening to help NASL, along with several restatements of intent to help NASL get to D1 status someday. Make of that what you will.

For much of the balance of the year, and into January 2017, I and other USSF representatives invested a lot of time and energy trying to save the NASL – not destroy it as the NASL would now have the Court believe. We helped the NASL explore a merger possibility with the USL, and when that option failed to materialize, I discussed with Mr. Commisso the possible transfer of ownership of the New York Cosmos – which, if it had not occurred, would have almost assuredly led to the demise of the NASL.

The first few exhibits are copies of documents from the 1910s and 1920s. Funny how lawsuits provide such a windfall for historians.

What about indoor? Gulati’s declaration cites FIFA statutes requiring national associations to govern football in all its forms. So what about the MASL, which isn’t in the USSF umbrella?

Deloitte is everywhere. The Pro League Standards Task Force includes one Alex Phillips, formerly of UEFA. Also formerly of Deloitte, which produced an easily dissected report in favor of promotion and relegation at the behest of Riccardo Silva (NASL’s Miami FC).

So dangerous you’ll have to sign a waiver. Gulati says he has been pushing for a while for fewer waivers in all leagues — MLS, NASL, USL, NWSL.

On SUM: Gulati says SUM was able to make a great deal by bundling. “As a consequence, SUM was able to negotiate sponsorship and broadcast deals which generated more money for both MLS and the USSF than either had previously been able to negotiate.

The revenues generated from USSF’s relationship with SUM benefit all stakeholders in the sport of soccer in that it allows the USSF to devote additional resources for, among other things, player, coach and referee development, safety education and the development of training centers.

On the standards: “Without a credible threat to deny non-compliant leagues a sanction for a particular division, the USSF would have almost no leverage to enforce its standards.”

On what the NASL might do next:

Today, Midfield Press reported that a couple of NASL owners plan to “help several ambitious NPSL clubs make the leap to the pros by temporarily financing them until long term investors can be found.”

I should mention I’ll have an NPSL-related podcast next week.

On my citation: You may have seen this on Twitter yesterday …

Well, #USSF did NOT like #NASL quoting you, that's for sure! pic.twitter.com/R1iX7tKo30

— Miki Turner (@turneresq) October 19, 2017

Here’s the funny part — that was NOT a quote I got directly from Don Garber.

Check out Exhibit 12 from the NASL filing / Rizik Declaration:

Notice the “8” footnote? Or the “told the Washington Post“?

That footnote goes to a Steven Goff story from Oct. 22, 1999.

I don’t think I’ll be subpoenaed.

Next up: Reconstructing the timeline of how everything fell apart from the multitude of USSF exhibits. This could take a while.

pro soccer

Quick read of the longggggg U.S. Soccer reply in the NASL suit

Posted on October 20, 2017October 28, 2017 by Beau Dure

U.S. Soccer deserves blame for many things. The organization is fundamentally arrogant and stubborn, and that may have played a role in the men’s national team’s failure to qualify for the World Cup — along with recent failures in the Olympics and a plateau or decline (depending on whose numbers you use) in youth soccer that threatens to undo decades of progress.

But are they really obliged to do any more than they already have for the NASL?

A few questions I’ll have as I go through this:

What does U.S. Soccer have to say about the 2015 Pro League Standards (PLS) proposal that the NASL seems to regard as the last straw?
How much info will U.S. Soccer spill about all the NASL’s missteps?
Does U.S. Soccer present a viable case that it can legally determine who’s a FIFA-sanctioned league under U.S. law (Stevens Act), and if not, are we headed toward U.S. Professional Soccer Armageddon (USPSA)?

Here we go …

SUMMARY

Literally the bullet points …

INTRO, translated to English

“Look, what do you want from us? We created PLS in 1995, when the NASL was still as much a synonym of 70s excess as Pele and Mick Jagger stumbling out of Studio 54. Then you guys decided to revive the brand name in 2009, and we held your hand through endless turnover and a racketeering scandal that engulfed your biggest owner?

“And it’s not as if Don Garber and a bunch of MLS/SUM guys are sitting here revising the PLS to sabotage you. It’s an independent task force, and directors affiliated with pro leagues can’t vote on whether to change the standards or let you guys have your precious D2 status or your more precious (ha!) D1 status. You really want to tell us Goldman Sachs alum Carlos Cordeiro, Clinton administration alum Donna Shalala and WNBA/Big East exec Val Ackerman are conspiring against you?

“Oh, and they’ve based all their “showing of harm” on the declaration of an owner (NY Cosmos’ Rocco Commisso) who just joined this sinking ship a few months ago. Now they’re crying about how impossible life would be in D3, to which we offer three letters: USL.

“Your Honor, if you grant this, you’ve undermined our entire organization, and you should get ready to serve as the de facto decider of divisional structures for the foreseeable future because everyone’s just going to sue.”

INTRO, crux of the legal argument (verbatim)

The preliminary relief NASL seeks—an injunction requiring USSF to sanction it as a Division II league for 2018—conflicts with the ultimate relief NASL seeks: an order striking down the PLS altogether. Indeed, NASL asks this Court to order something that it argues violates the antitrust laws. And in doing so, it wants the Court to reengineer the core activity of a legitimate sports governing body—something the antitrust laws and abundant precedent do not permit.

INTRO, recurring grammatical error

The commas are not needed here …

INTRO, new-ish stuff

ABOUT USSF GOVERNANCE

A bit of history we all know but is necessary for the legal record — World Cup in 1994, MLS in 1996, etc. Highlights:

Yes, USSF is willing to have multiple leagues in the same division. Just meet the standards.
Many references to Professor (Steven) Solomon, a governance expert at Berkeley who got his law degree from … Columbia! Is it hidden in the bylaws somewhere that everyone involved in U.S. Soccer must have passed through there at some point? My brother did a medical residency there — can he join the board?
The process for new PLS: The Task Force includes no reps from leagues or the USSF Board of Directors, the proposed revisions go out to all pro leagues (including NWSL, for the record) for comment, the revised revisions go to the Board, and the Board (with any pro league people recused) votes. Footnote: The NASL didn’t object to the “time zone” standard in 2014. When it (and other leagues) objected to the 2015 proposal, the task force withdrew it, and the Board never even voted. (I think the NASL reply may hammer at the claims of independence of this task force. If not — that would be a major omission.)

“HEY, YOU USED TO LIKE US!”

Parts F and G of the Statement of Facts run through the USSF/NASL relationship over the years. As stated:

2011: The league nearly fell apart before it started, but the USSF kindly helped the NASL to its feet and gave it D2 status with a bunch of waivers, and CEO Aaron Davidson said he took the standards seriously.
2012-15: The NASL still didn’t meet D2 standards, but the league assured us it was progressing, and nobody complained.
2015-16: The NASL, still not meeting D2 standards, applied for D1 and started complaining about the standards. “In ensuing discussions,” the USSF asked pointed questions about Traffic Sports, which owned several teams and was the league’s marketing agency … until it pleaded guilty to racketeering in May 2015. NASL said it was dissociated from Traffic, so the USSF gave it another year as D2 in 2016.

Then USSF drops the bomb:

The Task Force advised the Board not to grant the NASL a D2 sanction for 2017. The Board (again, minus recused members) gave it anyway.

The application for 2018: NASL had “at best” commitments from seven teams and no detailed plan for complying with the PLS.

MORE LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Roughly translated, but I think the two Legal Steves — Bank and Holroyd — can do a much better job dissecting this part:

Given the USL’s success as a D3 league, there’s no evidence of “irreparable harm” if the NASL plays D3.
There’s some hair-splitting about what a mandatory injunction can or cannot do.
There’s no conspiracy among USSF, MLS and SUM because:
- Recusals on votes
- The PLS existed waaaay before the NASL
- “MLS’s participation in USSF does not evidence conspiracy as a matter of law.” (Several precedents cited)

“Put simply, unless the Court is willing to conclude that decisions made by the disinterested members of the USSF Board (directors such as Ms. Ackerman, Mr. Cordeiro, Ms. Shalala, and directors affiliated with youth soccer) are somehow part of a supposedly decades-long conspiracy aimed at driving the NASL out of business, there is no evidence of any unlawful agreement.”

A 1988 suit against NASCAR is cited as precedent that a lawsuit cannot “reengineer the core activity of a legitimate sports governing body.”
- “Here, the NASL asks the Court to decide the right structure for professional soccer in the United States, and to reject the successful framework established by USSF decades ago.”

DEFENDING THE PLS

USSF argues that the standards are “pro-competitive” because they make sure leagues are credible.

Is it too easy to take a shot at the NASL griping that other major soccer leagues don’t have time-zone requirements, when it’s quite obvious that the countries in question have only one time zone? No, it’s not. USSF does just that. The time-zone standard is certainly ripe for debate — I see no reason for a second-division league to be national — but the NASL tossed the USSF lawyers a slow-pitch softball here.

Then comes an interesting argument: According to precedent (at least, USSF’s interpretation of that precedent), the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the PLS have an adverse effect on competition and that the same pro-competitive effect can be attained some other way.

(To which the counterargument would be “pro/rel,” and the counter-counterargument would be “you really think this is about pro/rel now?” and “that doesn’t address the USSF’s right or responsibility to set standards that could easily render pro/rel moot.”)

Oh, and Japan and Spain have minimum stadium-size requirements, so the NASL can’t say the USSF is unique.

Then the argument turns to the “greater good” realm: “NASL screams about supposed harm to itself, but never explains how the PLS harm U.S. sports fans, who have enjoyed an unprecedented growth in the sport of soccer under USSF’s watchful eye.” Is that legally relevant?

BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS: This will hurt me more than it’ll hurt you

In short: “NASL seeks an order that would eviscerate USSF’s standing as the governing body for soccer and seriously harm its relationship with FIFA.”

And that’s the main document. Tune in tomorrow when I make it through the rest of the … whoa … let’s make it next month …

pro soccer

NASL, U.S. Soccer cannot agree on court timeline

Posted on September 22, 2017October 14, 2017 by Beau Dure

U.S. Soccer has responded to the NASL’s antitrust lawsuit — not a full-scale rebuttal of the charges, but a complaint about the NASL’s desire to get to court as quickly as possible.

The USSF response goes on to say:

USSF was served with the NASL complaint two days ago. (They underline it in the complaint.)
That complaint is really long — 71 pages, plus three declarations totaling 113 pages (Stefan Szymanski’s is 80)

NASL asked for this schedule, the USSF response says:

Oct. 4: USSF response to the suit
Oct. 11: NASL response to the response
Oct. 18: Hearing
Before all that: If USSF doesn’t agree to that schedule, then both parties should submit their proposed schedules by 10 a.m. Friday (Sept. 22, today). U.S. Soccer responded, “Dude, it’s Rosh Hashanah” (not in those specific words), and suggested Tuesday, Sept. 26.
And yet, USSF came up with a briefing schedule by Thursday night. NASL didn’t respond to USSF, says the response, instead sending a letter to the court.

Next up: USSF claims no decision is necessary by mid-October. Here’s another excerpt, with an amusing turn of phrase highlighted:

The next part: USSF points out that the sanctioning process usually doesn’t even begin until fall, with decisions in December. And this past year, Commisso bought the Cosmos from the scrap heap in January and managed to get the team on the field two months later.

(Yes, you could argue that such a timeline is less than ideal. Of course, USSF could also argue that they did the NASL a favor by saying “no” to Division II sanctioning in September rather than December.)

Next up: The “We can’t possibly do this in two weeks” argument.

Which leads to a paragraph that is incoherent and yet interesting.

Having played the “Hey, you guys used to be reasonable” card, USSF now plays the “If you wanted a speedy resolution, why’d you include 80 pages from Stefan Szymanski?” card:

I hope this case continues because I would really like to see declarations from the past and present members of these mysterious task forces. Many task forces and committees have reports in the Annual General Meeting report, in case you want to see what the Audit Committee or Open Cup Committee has been up to, but usually not the Professional League Task Force (which currently consists of U.S. Soccer staff, U.S. Soccer’s VP and a Paralympian from the Athletes Council) or the Professional League Standards Task Force (Lawyers R Us).

The proposed USSF timeline is basically an invitation for Jeffrey Kessler and company to skip Thanksgiving this year.

I’m no lawyer, but I think it’s safe to say the court isn’t going to buy a 13-day window there. My guess would be the USSF Opposition would be due before Nov. 17.

Exhibit A is Jeff Carlisle’s ESPN story about Commisso bringing the Cosmos back from the dead. Exhibit B is Brian Straus’ SI story on the same topic.

women's soccer

Promotion/relegation propaganda/reality, Part 3: U.S. Soccer

Posted on September 22, 2017September 22, 2017 by Beau Dure

There’s no organization in the world quite like U.S. Soccer.

That’s not a compliment. That’s not an insult. It just … is.

U.S. Soccer is unique among major U.S. sports federations in that its mandate goes beyond organizing national teams and developmental programs. It’s responsible, by FIFA fiat, for regulating professional soccer competitions. (Or, in the case of the U.S. Open Cup, running those competitions outright.)

U.S. Soccer is unique among soccer federations in that the nation it serves is a massive economic power on a giant land mass in which soccer is not the most popular sport. The USA isn’t the only country that has its own indigenous offshoot of “football” that rivals or exceeds soccer in popularity — see Australia and, to a lesser extent, Ireland — but it’s the only one that has multiple team sports that garner more attention. As far as I know, it’s the only soccer federation in a country that has been openly hostile to the sport for generations.

And to my knowledge, it’s the only federation that was charged by FIFA with getting an honest-to-goodness professional league running in the 1990s. Every other major country already had one.

The most important election in U.S. Soccer to date was in the summer of 1990, when Alan Rothenberg unseated Werner Fricker. Rothenberg was under a bit of pressure to run. From 1994, here’s Steve Berkowitz, then of The Washington Post and later a demanding but fair editor who made some of my USA TODAY stories a lot better:

Rothenberg said FIFA officials, familiar with him because of his involvement with the 1984 Olympic soccer competition, initially contacted him about chairing the World Cup organizing committee. When he said he was interested in doing so, he was told that he also would have to become USSF president. He agreed, and lo and behold, Rothenberg unseated Fricker in August 1990.

And so Rothenberg went to work on getting FIFA’s cash cow, the World Cup, up to speed. He also had to fulfill U.S. Soccer’s other promise to FIFA, a pro soccer league. Rothenberg needed a plan, and so he went about hiring people — including economist Sunil Gulati and attorney Mark Abbott, on loan from Rothenberg’s law firm, Latham & Watkins.

Abbott sat with me for an interview when I was writing Long-Range Goals: The Success Story of Major League Soccer (please note: I did not choose that subtitle). Here’s what he said about Rothenberg’s unusually sprawling role:

At that time, there were very stringent procedures that were put in place to ensure that although Alan was the head of the soccer federation and leading the effort to make a presentation with respect to the league, he had been recused from the decision-making system in U.S. Soccer. There was a big meeting in December 1993 where we made our presentations. Alan was not part of the Federation board in making that decision. Also, and I think this gets overlooked, FIFA in awarding the World Cup to the United States did so very expressly for the purpose of using it as a springboard for a professional league. That’s what he was supposed to be doing, using this event to help start the league.

Still, the federation’s board voted to decide which of three bids would be awarded Division I status. In addition to Rothenberg’s group, the existing Division II-ish APSL put in a bid, as did Jim Paglia on behalf of League One America, which would take the old NASL’s Americanization of soccer rules to new extremes. (Jim, I know you’re out there — if you still have the video of the test games, I’d love to see them.)

The vote wasn’t unanimous. The tally was 18 MLS, 5 APSL, 0 League One America.

More from my book (because I can’t find Hersh’s story online):

Veteran national-team defender and U.S. Soccer board member Desmond Armstrong, who cast a ballot for MLS in the Division I vote, said his decision was strictly on merit. “I don’t have any love lost for the federation,” Armstrong told the Chicago Tribune‘s Philip Hersh. … “It wasn’t a matter of playing favorites, but of getting the best proposal out there so we can have jobs. I voted for Alan’s plan because it had all the t’s crossed and i’s dotted.”

The APSL grumbled a bit and for a short time was a legitimate competitor to MLS, signing quite a few players who were clearly good enough for the top tier but balked at the salary structure.

The next year (1994), Rothenberg ran for re-election. It got ugly, but he won.

The election was close in 1998. “Dr. Bob” Contiguglia defeated Larry Monaco 57.6% to 42.4%. Even closer was the race for executive VP, in which John Motta defeated … Sunil Gulati, then serving as MLS deputy commissioner. That was 372 (50.8%) to 361.

Maybe that was a rebuke of MLS officials gaining too much power in U.S. Soccer (though, note, this was before MLS hired Don Garber and well before MLS formed Soccer United Marketing). But such sentiment didn’t last long. U.S. Soccer then started staggering the terms of its top board members, and Gulati came back two years later to win the seat from Motta. And Gulati was able to point out in Fraser v MLS testimony that U.S. Soccer didn’t just rubber-stamp whatever MLS wanted.

Then Gulati succeeded Dr. Bob as U.S. Soccer president, and elections have come and gone with little fanfare or fire since then. The 2016 vice-presidential election was contested in gentlemanly fashion, with longtime independent director (board member) Carlos Cordeiro ousting Mike Edwards. Gulati hasn’t been opposed.

(This is an image of a Google search. Don’t click.)

Wait, wait … you’re saying. What does this have to do with promotion and relegation?

Nothing. Because it wasn’t an issue.

We’re about the have the next biggest presidential election in USSF history. Is pro/rel an issue now? Or is it more about general arrogance and an unwillingness to push Major League Soccer to be more open, whether that means pro/rel or a looser salary cap? Or perhaps the historical view that the close ties between USSF, MLS and Soccer United Marketing that may have been necessary for survival in the mid-2000s are no longer necessary and perhaps harmful?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BZKR67THaA0/?taken-by=prorelfc

Gulati has often been painted as ruthless — player testimony in Fraser v MLS certainly made him look like a tough negotiator, to put it nicely. In my experience, he’s a pragmatic idealist. He has devoted thousands of volunteer hours to making the sport succeed, and he has laudable intent (and action) on trying to diversify the typically homogeneous Federation. Whether he has handled every situation in his long tenures in various roles is up to everyone to decide.

Gans is pragmatic as well. He announced his candidacy only after going on a “listening tour” of various constituencies, and he’s concerned about youth soccer dysfunction and the decision-making that led the Fed to renew Jurgen Klinsmann’s contract and then fire him. As mentioned in Part 1 of this series, his take on pro/rel is cautious.

That’s not far from what Gulati said on pro/rel earlier this year:

“It’s not the rules of the game that people came in on,” Gulati said. “When you buy into a particular structure, that’s what you expect the rules to be. … But if the leagues or a league wants to engage, we’re happy to be support that.”

Lapointe is more prone to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. His approach to Twitter, to which he’s still relatively new, resembles another president in the United States:

Well your $450,000 behind schedule. And that is just one Employee.

— Paul J. Lapointe (@PaulLapointe98) September 18, 2017

He recently proposed promotion/relegation in women’s soccer and a U.S. Women’s Open Cup. The Twitter reaction was skeptical, to say the least:

This clearly shows you've never paid attention to the women's league. This is a bad idea, Paolo.

— Gwyn (@gwynerso) September 19, 2017

NWSL supporters on a lively Facebook group said “let’s get the NWSL in order first” and “technically, we have national Cups for women, but no one enters.” The latter point was emphasized by none other than John Motta, the former USSF VP who is now president of the U.S. Adult Soccer Association.

And Motta is himself considering a run. So is Jerome de Bontin, the former president of French club Monaco and general manager of the New York Red Bulls who is now the chairman of the sprawling Rush Soccer youth organization (sadly, not named after Geddy, Neil and Alex — or Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny, though like Rush Soccer, they hail from Colorado).

So will any of these presidential candidates bring forth promotion and relegation?

It’s complicated.

Like the United States themselves, U.S. Soccer is a representative democracy. Not a dictatorship. The president must contend with the rest of the board, the general membership and perhaps even the U.S. courts.

And even Lapointe sees a need to phase into promotion and relegation, not just throw open the whole pyramid at once. That might not reassure the PRZ (Pro/Rel Zealots), who insist any incremental step suggested by me or Peter Wilt is simply doing the bidding of Evil MLS.

In any case, pro/rel may be the least of the next U.S. Soccer president’s concern. As mentioned many times in the past week or so, the NASL lawsuit calls into question U.S. Soccer’s legal authority to regulate professional soccer, and it’s not the first. But the bylaws clearly state U.S. Soccer’s firm belief that it can’t simply let someone else take over any aspect of the game.

(Except, apparently, indoor soccer. The boarded version of the game is operating outside USSF right now. For a while, it was associated with an organization called the Federation Internacional de Futbol Rapido, whose acronym FIFRA was hilariously close to FIFA. And except, apparently, college and high school soccer, neither of which is governed by U.S. Soccer. But I digress …)

So the Federation, and its president, must walk some difficult political lines. Filip Bondy, a longtime soccer writer now contributing to Forbes, put it best when he described the presidency as “a job opening you might want to pass on.”

Summing up Bondy’s take — the president gets to:

Accept blame for national team downturns
Deal with men’s and women’s national team contract disputes and potential work stoppages
Deal with FIFA and other officials of potentially dubious credentials and ethics (to me, this might be the toughest — how long can you swim in the FIFA cesspool without starting to stink?)
Collect a salary of $0.

Oh, and you have to put up with the NASL and Stefan Szymanski. If you didn’t see my Twitter thread on Szymanski’s declaration in favor of the NASL tweaking U.S. Soccer, check it out. Allow some time.

And it’s not as if U.S. Soccer simply rubber-stamps everything the president wants. (Also in that link: Note that U.S. Soccer changed the way it runs election, asking candidates to declare in advance instead of just presenting themselves on the meeting floor, and it instituted term limits. If Gulati runs and wins re-election in 2018, he’s out in 2022.)

So who votes? Let’s see if we can sum up Bylaw 302:

State association reps, both youth and adult. Their votes are weighted by the number of people they represent. (In other words, New York East is going to have a more heavily weighted vote than Alaska.)
Athlete delegates. There’s usually only a few, but by U.S. law, their votes have to be weighted to count for 20 percent of the final tally.
Board members.
Past presidents.
Life members of U.S. Soccer (weighted so that they have no more than 12 total votes, which isn’t much)
Delegates from pro leagues, national associations, national affiliates, other affiliates, disabled service organizations, etc.
Adult Council and Youth Council administrative commissioners (I have no idea who this is)

Further weighting: The Youth, Adult and Professional Councils will all end up with equal votes.

Here’s how it broke down in 2015:

You know what I don’t see in the bylaws? Is the election “first past the post” (top vote-getter is president, even without a majority) or a runoff system (top two hold a runoff)? In elections for the “at large” representative on the board (which is rarely of interest), the bylaws specify a runoff. I haven’t seen anything about a presidential race with more than two candidates.

And as I’ve been writing this, Eric Wynalda has jumped into the race. Maybe. His platform seems to be simple: Sunil Out. Yet even he suggests promotion/relegation needs to start in the lower divisions before going up to Division I.

So will any of this bring about pro/rel? I don’t know. How’s Trump doing on draining the swamp? Or building the wall? Or ending Obamacare while making sure everyone has access to health insurance?

Overthrowing a dictator is a fairly simple process. Overhauling a democratic organization is much more difficult.

pro soccer

A complete fact/reality check of the NASL lawsuit (abridged)

Posted on September 20, 2017September 21, 2017 by Beau Dure

Apologies to Reduced Shakespeare Company for the headline.

let-it-rot — “In the midst of all this public bickering, *Let It Rot* was released as a film, an album, and a lawsuit.”

I went line-by-line through the NASL lawsuit and was intending to come back to anything that has yet to be covered in the Pro League Standards (story with PDF / standards sans PDF). After 3,000 words, I realized I was repeating myself. Or nit-picking. (In paragraph 16, the suit refers to “USFF,” and I quipped that this had nothing to do with U.S. Futsal.)

Let’s just hit the generalities:

This is a direct challenge of U.S. Soccer’s power to regulate pro soccer.

Paragraph 4: “The USSF is a private organization and has no legal authority to confer immunity from competition to anyone.”

This is where we’ll find some of the interesting questions. Around the world, of course, the national federation governs the game in that nation, and that’s not disputed. You could argue that the FA has unfairly promoted the Premier League at the expense of other leagues, and I wonder if any lawyers in England have ever considered challenging the EPL’s money-making machine as a repression of “sporting merit.”

In the USA, the legal authority for U.S. Soccer comes from the Stevens Act, which poses some problems …

THIS is the big issue: USSF has argued Stevens Act (which largely involves Olympics) grants authority over pro game, as well. Dubious. https://t.co/ZeOgRzT9jb

— Steve Holroyd says "Bring on Soccer War II"! (@soccermavn) September 19, 2017

And, both implicitly and explicitly, the suit challenges FIFA.

Paragraph 57: “FIFA is a private international body that has assumed the role of organizing men’s and women’s soccer on a global basis. Its rules and regulations are privately derived and formulated, and do not have any governmental source of authority over professional soccer in the U.S.”

That’s a necessary challenge because FIFA expects the national federation to govern soccer in its country. In fact, it demanded that U.S. Soccer get moving on a Division I league as part of the deal to host World Cup 1994.

(In other words, if MLS didn’t exist, you might not have had a chance to see the World Cup, though I suppose only those of us over 30 — at least — actually had that chance. I wonder how this lawsuit will affect the next U.S. bid.)

I wonder if it’s theoretically impossible to meet Stevens Act and FIFA’s expectations at the same time.

lovejoy

Everything U.S. Soccer did to try to stabilize the lower divisions over the past 10 years is now being touted as “anticompetitive.”

Here’s one reading of the U.S. Soccer’s decision to step into the rift within the USL, then operating in Division II and Division III: The Federation wanted to buy time for the two factions — neither of which had attained critical mass — to either work things out or solidify their own interests. So it agreed to take over and run an ad hoc Division II league for one year, during which the teams that would become the NASL managed to get their ships in relative order. The Federation also wrote stringent Division II standards that the NASL teams — but not the USL teams — could meet, all in the interest of trying to make sure teams wouldn’t fold midseason any more. (Yes, I hear you, disgruntled St. Louis Athletica fans.)

(And let’s be clear: The USL isn’t blameless here. The USL’s centralized model is the stumbling block to any possible merger between it and the NASL, NISA, NPSL, etc., and that is looking more and more like a liability at this point.)

Here’s the NASL lawsuit’s reading, repeated several times in the suit: The league was all set to go Division II and then Division I, but U.S. Soccer was in the way.

And the process of granting waivers to the Standards is deemed suspicious, even though that kept the NASL going at Division II for a few years.

Everything is part of a conspiracy.

The word “conspiracy” appears 31 times in the document.

We’ve heard these arguments for years. MLS and the USSF want to monopolize soccer in the United States. I can’t imagine a country in which that’s not the case. Granted, you can get into the top tier through promotion/relegation in other countries, but the system is still set up so that you need vast amounts of capital to do so.

The USL, which got the same provisional Division II status as the NASL this year, is considered part of the conspiracy because it’s not interested in challenging MLS and cooperates with it, allowing MLS reserve teams to compete therein. But USL-MLS relations weren’t always so great, and the NASL was close to lining up the same partnership before abruptly backing away.

The NASL seems convinced MLS was terrified of it.

Paragraph 10: “Driven in part by “concern[s] that the new NASL … would import players from South America and in essence become the anti-M.L.S. by allowing teams to sign players without worrying about a salary cap or a single-entity setup,” (citing a 2010 Bleacher Report piece) and thereby create a more attractive product for fans, the USSF has conspired with MLS and other USSF members to block the NASL from effectively competing with MLS.

As with a lot of things in Jeffrey Kessler’s lawsuits against U.S. Soccer, such as the time his side tried to convince the court that the “Premier League” and “First Division” were both “Division I” leagues in England, this is a more persuasive argument if you assume no one with any soccer knowledge will enter the courtroom. USSF lawyers will undoubtedly respond that MLS has signed plenty of players from South America and loosened its salary cap so that teams like Toronto can spend like the Sept. 23 Doomsday prediction is accurate.

Twice, the suit touts the NASL’s Open Cup record vs. MLS teams. But it’s a bit selective, spanning only the years 2012-14. THAT is when the NASL had a 42 percent win record against MLS, as claimed in the suit. And it doesn’t mention that the NASL has not yet had a team make the semifinals, much less win it. Most of those wins were against MLS reserves in the early rounds.

Also difficult to explain away from an NASL perspective: The USL, playing at a lower division, didn’t seem to have any problem staying competitive with the higher-tier NASL. If the USL could be competitive as a third-division league, why is Division II status so important to the NASL?

The NASL believes the Professional League Standards are unfair.

I’ve questioned the divisional standards before. I don’t think a Division II league, for example, should be forced to operate in three time zones. Division I? Probably.

The suit adds a fun twist on the time-zone requirement, pointing out that top leagues in England, Germany, Spain, France and Italy have no such requirement. A look at a map should explain why.

Also, the suit complains that the USA’s standard of needing 15,000 seats in every Division I stadium would mean England’s Premier League is out of compliance. Bournemouth’s inability to renovate its stadium has far-reaching consequences, doesn’t it?

But it’s not as if the NASL is close to this requirement. Its median stadium capacity is 10,000.

Other countries have standards, too. In Germany, if you want to be in the top two tiers, you need a youth academy with a jacuzzi. To reach “Step 1” (the fifth division) in England, you have to be able to separate home and visiting fans in your ground.

Still, the suit raises a few legitimate objections. Why are Division I clubs required to have a “principal owner” with an Individual Net Worth of at least $40 million, when there’s a separate requirement for an ownership group to have a combined net worth of $70 million (to which the NASL apparently does not object) and a $1 million performance bond each season? Why did a 2015 proposal to raise the standards further — itself an ill-timed idea — propose that a Division I league must have 75% of its teams in metro areas of more than 2 million people, of which there are barely 30 in the USA?

Who made the Professional League Standards so stringent in the first place?

Hat tip to BigSoccer’s Knave, who pointed out that some of the owners who split from the USL to form the NASL in the first place were pushing for tougher standards in 2010. Are any of those owners still involved?

On Jason Davis’ SiriusXM show today, Steven Bank noted that some “anticompetitive” standards may actually be procompetitive because they help clubs stay in business, which would be a change from lower divisions of the past.

But this is a recurring argument in the suit. There’s no other reason for the standards to be the way they are except to keep the NASL down. I’m not sure history backs up that claim.

Hey, what about promotion/relegation?

Paragraph 11: U.S. Soccer doesn’t do pro/rel, so there.

Paragraph 12: NASL seeks to strike down all rules on divisions.

It’s a mixed message.

Paragraph 69 repeats the dubious claim that the FIFA statutes require divisional assignment primarily on sporting merit. We’ve covered this.

Antitrust depends on defining a market that is being claimed as exclusive territory by the defendant. What’s the market here?

Steven Bank addressed this issue this afternoon on Jason Davis’ SiriusXM show:

"They could lose on market," – @ProfBank, citing the fact that MLS has so much competition on U.S. broadcasts (EPL, Liga MX, etc.)

— Beau Dure 🇺🇦🌈🖖☮️ (@duresport) September 20, 2017

Steve Holroyd’s response:

I think that works for *players*, but I'm not sure it's an obstacle when it comes to teams…teams can only play in US

— Steve Holroyd says "Bring on Soccer War II"! (@soccermavn) September 20, 2017

Why do I know so many legal people?

The suit (Paragraph 35) actually says U.S. Soccer is restraining competition in the USA AND Canada, which may come as a surprise to the people launching a new league in Canada.

Is U.S. Soccer’s structure inherently flawed?

MLS has 57.1% of the votes on the Pro Council, which means it can pretty much select the two representatives to the U.S. Soccer Board. (Though one of them now is actually Steve Malik of North Carolina FC, which is in the NASL (and NWSL) but perhaps not totally down with what’s happened this week, reports Neil Morris.)

Is that just the natural order of things, though? How many federations have multiple organizations like this? Even in U.S. Soccer, the Adult Council has one organization — the USASA, whose president, John Motta, will announce within 30 days whether he’s running for the U.S. Soccer presidency. (Breaking news, I suppose, but it’s been discussed on Twitter.)

Is U.S. Soccer obligated to have more than one Division I soccer league?

No one else does, unless you count the oddball Indian Super League, which is a weird cross between a league and a tournament.

If so, is U.S. Soccer obligated to make that second league the NASL?

In Paragraph 198, U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati is quoted as saying in 2007 that he figured we would have two Division I leagues in a few years.

Let’s assume for sake of argument this isn’t ripped out of context (I haven’t had a chance to check). That would mean Gulati — and apparently U.S. Soccer, since the suit alleges he and his conspirators have near-omnipotent power over it — have no objection to having a second D1 league.

So why the objection to the NASL?

Is it because the league muddled through under the guidance of since-disgraced Traffic Sports, among other troubles pointed out in an excellent overview by Soccer America’s Paul Kennedy?

Is it because the NASL brand name harkens back to the days of a popular but ill-managed league that broke every rule it could find?

Is it because the league is down to eight existing teams, some of which have their eye on the door?

Is it because, as Kartik Krishnaiyer points out in a piece that doesn’t spare the Federation, the NASL “dug its own grave“?

Or is it because U.S. Soccer has come to realize a second Division I league would muddy the waters, poison relationships with sponsors and broadcasters and result in a replay of the “Soccer Wars” that killed the American Soccer League after its 1920s heyday?

pro soccer

An analysis of the ramifications of the NASL's antitrust suit

Posted on September 19, 2017October 28, 2017 by Beau Dure

You know that scene in Airplane that’s always cut from the TV broadcast? When Ted Striker says something’s going to hit the fan, the camera cuts to the airport office, and said something does indeed hit the fan?

Yeah. That’s my analysis of the ramifications of the NASL’s antitrust suit. But, because this is how we roll, we’re going to dig deeper.

The lawsuit might not be a bad thing. From the youth soccer mandates to the national team ticket prices, the U.S. soccer (lowercase) community has one major complaint against U.S. Soccer (uppercase):

The Federation has become unspeakably arrogant.

So this is a shot across the bow of U.S. Soccer, and perhaps it’s well-deserved. Maybe this will force the Federation to take a good hard look at the state of the lower divisions, listen to the people involved and take more of an enlightened leadership role. It’s certainly an ominous sign that at least three of the four current members (and the two USSF staff liaisons) of the Professional League Standards Task Force are lawyers — one of them an attorney for the Federation from 2001 to 2009.

That said … are the people filing this suit really the people who should be leading the revolution?

The NASL (see Part 2 of my pro/rel series, which will resume this week) has always been an oddball. It revived the brand name of a dead league that still holds unofficial world records for rule changes and Bugs Bunny appearances, then posited itself as the paragon of traditional soccer. Among the many ironies at play here — the old NASL never bothered with the U.S. Open Cup, which the current NASL touts as proof of its competitiveness:

The NASL claims "a highly competitive product of top-tier quality" because its clubs won 42% of Open Cup games by mid-2015: pic.twitter.com/eWXl2o5dWL

— Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) September 19, 2017

I’d like to see a breakdown of that 42%. In any case, the Open Cup semifinals (for that matter, most of the quarterfinals) tend to proceed without NASL involvement.

The last two sentences here are classic Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer who has been wildly successful in every manner of sports litigation except soccer. (See my entry from when the NASL first floated the antitrust warning two years ago.) They may seem convincing to people who don’t know the U.S. soccer landscape. They’re easily refuted by those who do.

And those who do tend to point out inconvenient facts like this:

https://twitter.com/ktchamberlin/status/910251802754519040

And here’s a final concern: Court cases have generally been very, very bad for soccer. The MLS players lawsuit (again, Kessler involved) drained a lot of resources from a developing league that could’ve been used to put the league on firmer ground, and it was hardly the first time …

Nothing is new under the sun in @ussoccer–here's the headline from a US soccer paper from 50 years ago tomorrow #ProRelForUSA pic.twitter.com/hP37XOtuJd

— Steve Holroyd (@soccermavn) September 19, 2017

Steve also made the point that league-vs.-league competition has been good in many U.S. sports. But it hasn’t been so good in U.S. soccer. Indoor soccer never recovered from the alphabet soup of the 1990s — though it’s still hanging in there (and might take off if someone added an ambitious team like, say, the Cosmos?). The “Soccer Wars” of the late 1920s threw a wrench into the progress of the American Soccer League.

All that said, U.S. Soccer surely could’ve stopped all this. Look back on the Professional League Standards helpfully published by Neil Morris, whose digging on lower-division soccer is invaluable. (Try PDF from Neil’s old site or non-PDF from Kenn Tomasch.) They’re a little overboard. It’s one thing to make sure teams don’t pop up and blow away like dandelion seeds. It’s another to say you can have multiple Division 2 leagues and then make it nearly impossible for two leagues to meet the standards.

To remain in Division 2, the NASL is supposed to have 12 teams. (Someone, probably Neil, pointed out that a Division 1 women’s league has to have at least 10 teams by year four, which means the NWSL currently has no margin for error.) They’re all supposed to have an owner (at least 35% of the club) with an individual net worth of at least $20 million. They have to be in the Eastern, Central and Pacific time zones.

Why? What’s the harm in having a second division that’s 10 teams in the East and Central? Or eight teams in the Pacific? Why one principal owner with at least $20 million to throw around?

Yes, you can get waivers. Expect Kessler to paint those waivers as purely arbitrary. And he may have a point.

In short: This whole mess really could’ve been avoided. Maybe it’s unrealistic to relaunch the NASL and the Cosmos with pretenses of glory. Maybe it’s unrealistic for the Federation to try to solve the problem with implausible standards.

Maybe everyone involved deserves to be involved.

ranting soccer dad, soccer

An analysis of the ramifications of the NASL’s antitrust suit

Posted on September 19, 2017October 14, 2017 by Beau Dure

Yeah. That’s my analysis of the ramifications of the NASL’s antitrust suit. But, because this is how we roll, we’re going to dig deeper.

The Federation has become unspeakably arrogant.

That said … are the people filing this suit really the people who should be leading the revolution?

The NASL claims "a highly competitive product of top-tier quality" because its clubs won 42% of Open Cup games by mid-2015: pic.twitter.com/eWXl2o5dWL

— Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) September 19, 2017

I’d like to see a breakdown of that 42%. In any case, the Open Cup semifinals (for that matter, most of the quarterfinals) tend to proceed without NASL involvement.

And those who do tend to point out inconvenient facts like this:

YOU HAVE EIGHT TEAMS.

— Kevin Chamberlin (@ktchamberlin) September 19, 2017

Nothing is new under the sun in @ussoccer–here's the headline from a US soccer paper from 50 years ago tomorrow #ProRelForUSA pic.twitter.com/hP37XOtuJd

— Steve Holroyd says "Bring on Soccer War II"! (@soccermavn) September 19, 2017

Why? What’s the harm in having a second division that’s 10 teams in the East and Central? Or eight teams in the Pacific? Why one principal owner with at least $20 million to throw around?

Yes, you can get waivers. Expect Kessler to paint those waivers as purely arbitrary. And he may have a point.

Maybe everyone involved deserves to be involved.

podcast, pro soccer

Podcast: Ep 5 — Promotion/relegation with Peter Wilt

Posted on August 9, 2017September 8, 2017 by Beau Dure

For more than a decade, promotion/relegation talk has been the bane of the U.S. soccer community’s existence. It wasn’t going to happen any time soon, and some people reacted to that news by harassing and slandering the people who explained the reasons why.

But now? We have a former Chicago Fire president — Peter Wilt, who has plenty of experience in other soccer leagues and U.S. sports endeavors — writing a manifesto on how we can make it happen, and he’s starting a league with the goal of making it happen.

In other words, the grownups are talking about it now.

Also, I’m doing a survey of lower-division clubs, from Division 2 to Division Not, and I need more replies.

In this week’s podcast, Peter Wilt and I go through history and FIFA statutes (starting around the 5:30 mark), argue the merits of pro/rel (18:15) and talk about what’s changed to make it more likely (31:30).

Quick note: This was recorded before Miami FC and the Kingston Stockade appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to ramp up the pressure on U.S. Soccer to force pro/rel into being, an action I fear will be counterproductive. But perhaps we can talk about that on a future podcast.

Listen away …

https://play.radiopublic.com/ranting-soccer-dad-8QVdvP/ep/s1!ac49849bc440835d7c5c04c6a02f0cfa88678616

Duresport.com

Duresport.com

Books and freelance work by Beau Dure

Tag: nasl

Can the NASL take a free ride on what MLS has built?

Timeline: How did NASL-USSF dispute come to this?

How the NASL can bring down Sunil Gulati (maybe)

Quick read of the longggggg U.S. Soccer reply in the NASL suit

NASL, U.S. Soccer cannot agree on court timeline

Promotion/relegation propaganda/reality, Part 3: U.S. Soccer

A complete fact/reality check of the NASL lawsuit (abridged)

An analysis of the ramifications of the NASL's antitrust suit

An analysis of the ramifications of the NASL’s antitrust suit

Podcast: Ep 5 — Promotion/relegation with Peter Wilt