The recent decision by a federal jury to rule in favor of the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) and Major League Soccer (MLS) in the antitrust lawsuit initiated by the North American Soccer League (NASL) marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of professional soccer in the United States. For the NASL, this outcome is not just a legal defeat but a profound commentary on its standing in an arena dominated by more commercially successful leagues. This article delves into the intricacies of the lawsuit, the motivations behind it, and the broader implications for soccer in America.
The genesis of this legal battle can be traced back to September 2017, when the USSF denied the NASL’s application for a Division 2 league classification. In response, the NASL filed a lawsuit, alleging that the federation had violated federal antitrust laws. Initially seeking $500 million in damages, the NASL’s claims were significantly moderated by the presiding judge, ultimately capped at $375 million. The NASL, a second-tier league operational from 2011 until its hiatus in 2018, found itself embroiled in a contentious confrontation with the USSF, which it accused of manipulating the division structure to benefit MLS, its commercial partner.
Diving deeper, the NASL’s argument was hinged upon the assertion that the USSF’s Professional League Standards (PLS) were unfairly tailored, leaving the NASL unable to meet the criteria for league designation. The PLS incorporates essential requirements such as team count, location, and market size, which the NASL claimed had been strategically modified against them. This line of reasoning was central to NASL’s allegations of blatant favoritism towards MLS, which has since solidified its status as the prevailing league in American soccer.
The trial, which unfolded over three weeks, showcased a range of influential figures from the soccer community, including former USSF president Sunil Gulati, MLS commissioner Don Garber, and various team owners. Each brought personal insights and testimonies that shaped the perception and direction of the trial. Notably, Rocco Commisso, owner of the New York Cosmos and a financial backer of the NASL’s claims, painted a picture of the league’s struggles against systemic hurdles.
Despite the NASL’s vocal narrative, the jury’s verdict highlighted the significant lack of evidence supporting a formal collusion between the USSF and MLS. The defense relied heavily on demonstrating that the NASL’s inability to thrive stemmed from structural and managerial deficiencies rather than external conspiracies. This constitutes a crucial point—the jury found that the competitive ecosystem among various soccer leagues was alive and well, undermining the NASL’s claims of monopolization.
Following the jury’s decision, both the USSF and MLS issued statements expressing satisfaction with the outcome, framing it as a validation of their operational integrity and commitment to fostering a diverse soccer landscape. The USSF emphasized its dedication to nurturing professional soccer at every level, while MLS underscored its contributions to elevating the sport since its inception in 1996.
However, the NASL is not ready to concede the battle entirely; its lead attorney, Jeffrey Kessler, has voiced intentions to appeal, indicating a belief in foundational legal errors during the trial. Figuring integral to this appeal will be the NASL’s assertions of legislative misapplication—that the jury was not adequately informed on certain legal standards that might have altered the outcome.
The verdict carries significant implications for American soccer, making it evident that while the NASL’s vision of competition remains ambitious, the reality is shaped by established interests like the USSF and MLS. The outcome illustrates the challenges facing alternative leagues in a system where the structures of power and influence are deeply entrenched.
Moreover, the ruling reinforces the existing hierarchical nature of soccer in the U.S., signaling that the USSF and MLS will likely continue to dominate the landscape. For fans and aspiring teams, this verdict might resonate as a cautionary tale about the complexities of establishing a viable professional league outside the shadow of established counterparts.
The NASL’s antitrust lawsuit serves as a microcosm of the broader dynamics at play within American soccer. While the NASL’s journey may not have concluded, the jury’s ruling stands as a testament to the challenges faced by new entrants in a market defined by long-standing relationships and competitive frameworks. The fight for recognition and support will continue, but the path forward remains fraught with complications.