2015 Letter From NASL Opposing Changes To Professional League Standards

Case 1:17-cv-05495-MKB-ST Document 26-3 Filed 10/16/17 Page 2 of 264 PageID #: 1218
WINSTON 200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166
&STRAWN
LLP
North America Europe Asia
T +1 212 294 6700
F +1 212 294 4700
JEFFREY L. KESSLER
+I (212) 294-4698
jkessler@winston.com
July 23, 2015
Sunil Gulati
Daniel Flynn
Professional League Standards Task Force
U.S. Soccer Federation
1801 S. Prairie Ave.
Chicago, IL 60616
Re: Professional League Standards
Dear Mr. Gulati and Mr. Flynn:

This letter is submitted on behalf of the North American Soccer League ("NASL") in
response to the request of the U.S. Soccer Federation ("USSF") for comments on the USSF's
proposed changes to the Professional League Standards ("Pro League Standards"). In short, the
NASL believes the proposed changes are part of an unlawful set of actions by the USSF, in
combination with Major League Soccer ("MLS"), that have the purpose and effect of preventing
any competition with MLS at the top level of men's professional soccer in the United States.
These efforts constitute clear violations of U.S. antitrust laws and are contrary to the best
interests of the USSF's constituents, as well as the broadcasters, sponsors and fans who support
soccer in this country. The NASL thus urges the USSF not to adopt the proposed changes
discussed below, but iristead to revise some of the current Pro League Standards that already
create an unnecessary and anticompetitive barrier to entry designed to maintain the monopoly
position of MLS. It is only through the removal of these anticompetitive requirements that the
USSF can come into compliance with the law. The NASL stands ready to open an immediate
dialogue with the USSF to bring about this result.
I. The Protected Monopoly Status of MLS and Its Economic Relationship with USSF
To fully appreciate the anticompetitive nature of the Pro League Standards, it is necessary
first to review the unique and protected monopoly status of MLS and the role of the USSF in
shielding MLS from the forces of competition. From the inception of MLS, the USSF has taken
numerous steps to insulate MLS from competition at the top level of men's professional soccer
WINSTON July 23, 2015

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 2
in the United States. Moreover, the USSF has entered into a series of business transactions that
enable the USSF to share in the financial benefits that accrue to MLS as a result of its protected
monopoly status.
By 1988, the USSF had decided to sanction only a single men's "Division I" professional
league, and in 1993 chose the MLS (then known as Major League Professional Soccer)-which
was headed by the USSF's own president, Alan Rothenberg. Although classifying professional
soccer leagues into different competitive divisions is common around the world, classifications
outside of the United States are generally premised on systems of promotion and relegation. As
you know, FIFA endorses the principle of promotion and relegation, and states that a Club's
entitlement to take part in a domestic league championship shall depend principally on sporting
merit. 1 The USSF, however, decided to classify professional leagues into wholly separate
divisions, with the teams in each league not tested by competition with other divisions based on
promotion and relegation.
Most significantly, since its inception, MLS has been the only men's professional league
to be placed in Division I by the USSF, as a result of Pro League Standards that are designed to
shield MLS from any competition. The most recent proposed amendments to the Pro League
Standards have the purpose and effect of further entrenching MLS' s monopoly at the very time
when the NASL has emerged as a new entrant capable of competing with MLS at the Division I
level. This has shielded MLS from competition so that MLS owners reap monopoly rents from
their protected position, including by selling expansion franchises for amounts totaling hundreds
of millions of dollars. 2
The USSF also entered into a series of commercial arrangements directly with MLS to
enable the USSF itself to benefit economically from the monopoly status it has created for MLS.
Most prominently, the USSF's commercial rights have been pooled together and sold jointly
with the commercial rights of MLS in the MLS-controlled Soccer United Marketing ("SUM")
1
See FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, art. 9(1).
2
See, e.g., Adam Stem, With Multiple Cities Vying For A Team, Will MLS Revisit Decision To Cap Expansion At
24?, SPORTS BUSINESS DAILY, Aug. 6, 2014, http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/20 14/08/06/Leagues-
and-Goveming-Bodies/MLS-24-teams.aspx ("Recent expansion franchises have fetched fees like $100M for NYC
FC and $70M for Atlanta and Orlando.").
WINSTON July 23,2015

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 3
organization. The USSF's Audited Financial Statements report over $15 million in revenue
under this agreement between USSF and SUM just last year, including over $6 million in
revenue sharing. This direct economic link between the USSF and MLS creates an economic
incentive for the USSF to protect MLS's monopoly position at the expense of all other potential
competitors.
The USSF and MLS have further combined together to enter into a senes of joint
television and media rights agreements. Last year's contract with ESPN, Fox and Univision was
valued at approximately $720 million, with substantial marketing and promotional support for
both organizations under the contract. As MLS Commissioner and USSF board member Don
Garber stated to the media: "This is the most comprehensive media rights partnership in the
history of soccer in our country ... It's a statement about where the soccer market is and where
Major League Soccer and US. Soccer fit into the paradigm."3 "We went out with a very simple
deck to tell everyone, 'Here's what we're building,"' said MLS President and Deputy
Commissioner Mark Abbott. "I don't think there's a closer relationship between a league and
its national team than we have with US. Soccer. " 4
To make certain the monopoly position of MLS is maintained, the USSF has structured
its governance to advance the economic interests of MLS at the expense of all other professional
league USSF members. For example, based on a methodology proposed by MLS Commissioner
Garber, the USSF has allotted nine of the fourteen seats on its Professional Council to MLS, with
three for the National Women's Soccer League, and only one delegate each for NASL and the
United Soccer League. This has effectively given MLS total control of the USSF's Professional
Council.
Whenever a voice within the USSF has questioned the protected status granted to MLS,
that voice has been either ignored or suppressed. In 2014, for example, when the USSF men's
national team coach and technical director questioned the level of competition within MLS, after
speaking favorably of NASL and the possibility of the USSF moving to the relegation system
3
John Ourand & Christopher Botta, MLS's Big Play, SPORTS BUSINESS JOURNAL, May 12, 2014,
http://www .sportsbusinessdaily.com/Joumal/Issues/20 14/05/12/Media/MLS-TV .aspx (emphasis added).
4
Id. (emphasis added).

&STRAWN Page4
LLP
embraced by professional soccer around the world, MLS Commissioner Garber responded by
sending the USSF what he described as a "very strong letter" in protest, declaring that he was
"confident" the USSF would "ensure that our technical director is in line with the vision [the
USSF] has publicly stated." 5 And MLS Commissioner Garber has explained that the "vision:'
MLS shares with the USSF is that MLS must be promoted and protected as the "key driver" of
Division I professional soccer in this country:
We have invested since our founding billions and billions of
dollars in creating a foundation for this league and sport, growing a
fan base, commercializing this sport, creating a dynamic where it's
part of the sports culture in this country and creating a soccer
nation.... To think that we are not aligned with our national team
coach is disappointing and frankly it is personally infuriating. It is
not in line with the shared vision that we have heard many times
from the federation that a strong and vibrant first division in the
United States is going to be one of the key drivers of this sport in
this country. ... [W]e collectively need to ensure that everybody
is aligned with the mutual goal that we have of growing the game
and the league's role in growing the game. In order to do that,
we can't try to denigrate or damage or disparage the very entity
that will be the key driver of the sport in this country. 6
After receiving this letter, the USSF announced that the remarks of the U.S. men's
national team coach would have been "better handled in a private way" and offered the following
mea culpa, making it clear that the USSF's policy is a commitment to growing MLS through a
close alignment between the USSF and MLS:
[T]he fundamental views of all of us involved are: "We're on the
same page." We got diverted from that ... We will get back to the
job at hand, which is continuing to grow MLS, continuing to
improve the national team, and the broader goal, which does both
5
Steven Goff, MLS Commissioner Says Klinsmann "Needs to Think Very, Very Hard About How He Manages
Himself Publicly," WASH. POST, Oct. 15, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/soccer-
insider/wp/20 14/1 0/ 15/mls-commissioner-says-klinsmann-needs-to-think-very-very-hard-about-how-he-manages-
himself-publicly (emphasis added).
6
!d. (emphasis added); see also MLS Commissioner Don Garber: A Strong League and Foundation Is the Formula
for Success, MLSSOCCER.COM, Oct. 23, 2014, http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2014/10/22/mls-
commissioner-don-garber-strong-league-and-federation-formula-success ("'What I intended to do was support our
league and our players and our clubs,' said Garber, 'and to ensure that everybody associated with this sport was
aligned with the vision that comes from our [U.S. Soccer] Federation President [Sunil Gulati] that a strong league is
a necessary component for national team success."').

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 5
of those things . . . [T]he actual opinions of . . . me and the

leadership at MLS and U.S. Soccer [are] actually closely aligned
with where we see the game going. 7
As will be shown below, this close alignment of the USSF and MLS has led to the
promulgation of Pro League Standards that are not designed to serve any legitimate,
procompetitive purpose, but instead serve as unlawful protections for the MLS against any
effective competition.
II. The History of the USSF's Pro League Standards
The USSF adopted the Division I Pro League Standards in 1995 ("1995 Standards"),
shortly after MLS was created. The 1995 Standards were significantly less restrictive than the
current Pro League Standards, and this in turn enabled MLS to attain Division I status as a new
entrant. At that point, MLS could not have satisfied the standards as they have been changed
today. The Pro League Standards currently in effect are dated February 28, 2014 (the "2014
Standards"), and were adopted shortly after the NASL was recognized as a potential competitor
to MLS. The 2014 Standards were substantially more restrictive than even the immediately
preceding full set of Pro League Standards, adopted in 2008 (the "2008 Standards"), and were
designed to ensure that only MLS-and not NASL-would qualify as a Division I league. There
is no other credible explanation for the more restrictive provisions of the 2014 Standards, such as
the two shown below:
1995 Division I Standards 2008 Division I Standards 2014 Division I Standards
§ I( A): Must have at least 10 § I(A)(i): Must have at least 10 § II(a)(i): Must have at least 12
teams. teams. teams to apply, and at least 14
by third year.
§ II(b)(i): Must have U.S.-based

§ II(A): Must have U.S.- § II(A)(i): Must have U.S.-based
teams in at least Eastern,
based teams in at least three teams in at least three time zones
Central and Pacific time zones
time zones. in continental U.S.
in continental U.S.
7
Steven Goff, Sunil Gulati Says USSF and MLS Are "On the Same Page," WASH. POST, Oct. 22,2014,
http://www. washingtonpost.com/blogs/soccer-insider/wp/20 14/1 0/22/sunil-gulati-says-ussf-and-mls-are-on-the-
same-page.
WINSTON July 23,2015

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 6
NASL could'have satisfied both of these requirements under the 1995 Standards, but
NASL was not in a position to satisfy the new restrictions imposed in the revised 2014 Standards
that the USSF only adopted after the NASL appeared as a potential competitor to MLS. The
significant tightening of the standards was a transparent effort to preserve MLS' s monopoly
position as the sole men's Division I league in the United States, untethered to any
procompetitive criteria that would justify these revisions.
Indeed, the new restrictions adopted in the 2014 Standards have no legitimate
procompetitive basis, and could not be met by some of the best professional soccer leagues
outside the United States. For example, the requirement of the 2014 Standards that a league be
present in three specific time zones in the continental U.S.-Eastem, Central and Pacific-
makes no sense. The NASL already has a geographic reach, covering three times zones (four,
when a Puerto Rico franchise rejoins the league in 2016), that is broader than most other top-tier
professional soccer leagues throughout the world, the vast majority of which are located in much
smaller areas covering only one or two time zones, such as Serie A in Italy, the Bundesliga in
Germany, La Liga in Spain, Ligue 1 in France, and the Premier League in England. Yet the
NASL could not satisfy the 2014 Standards on this point because its third time zone has either
been outside the "continental" U.S. (the Atlantic time zone, covering Puerto Rico) or the
Mountain time zone in Canada, which is given no credit at all in the Standards. There is no
purpose for structuring the time zone requirement this way other than to block NASL from
competing with MLS.
Similarly, there is no legitimate purpose for the requirement in the 2014 Standards that
any men's Division I applicant have twelve teams at time of application and fourteen teams by
year three, when ten teams were sufficient for Division I status from 1995 until 2014. On the
contrary, this moving target was simply designed to outpace NASL's normal progress of
expansion. As the USSF knows, it is very difficult for a new entrant to Division I to have so
many teams satisfying the Division I standards at the outset, which is why the standards only
required that ten teams be in existence when they were adopted in 1995. Indeed, due to the
MLS's already-dominant presence in many of the available metropolitan markets, a requirement

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 7
to reach this higher number of teams before being granted Division I status is a significant and
unjustified barrier to entry designed to protect the MLS monopoly.
These unnecessary barriers to entry are exacerbated by the arbitrary requirement of the
Pro League Standards that all Division I league stadiums have a minimum capacity of 15,000
seats. The effect of this rigid requirement is that, irrespective of average seating capacity,
attendance, and quality of play league-wide, a single stadium with under 15,000 seats can
disqualify a whole league from Division I status. There is no legitimate purpose served by this
requirement which wrongfully impedes entry by potential competitors, such as the NASL.
Indeed, new entrants like the NASL initially have limited stadium options, given the entrenched
position of MLS, and need time to grow as Division I competitors to increase their fan base and
justifY the investment in new stadiums. In a competitive, free market, such expansion and
investment in new stadiums would take place over time without creating an unnecessary and
anticompetitive barrier to Division I competition.
Further, even if some minimum seating capacity requirement could be justified for
Division I status, it is clear that the existing 15,000 seat requirement is unreasonably high. This
can easily be seen from the fact that A.F.C. Boumemouth recently won promotion to the
Barclays Premier League-the most prominent professional soccer league in the world-with a
stadium capacity of only 11,700, and will play in that same stadium with the same capacity in the
Premier League. Other teams have also played in the Premier League in stadiums with
capacities below 15,000. No one would seriously question that the Barclays Premier League is
one of the preeminent soccer leagues in the world, yet under the USSF's 2014 Standards, the
Premier League would not meet the USSF's stadium capacity requirements for Division I. The
same is true for the Argentine Primera Division and La Liga in Spain, both of which are among
the top leagues in the world and both of which have teams whose stadiums have capacities under
15,000 seats.
III. NASL's 2015 Application For Division I Status
Despite the anticompetitive requirements of the 2014 Standards, the NASL held out hope
that the USSF would recognize it could not legally enforce such restrictions to shield MLS from
any Division I competition, and would entertain an application from the NASL to grant it

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 8
Division I status by waiving the unjustifiably restrictive aspects of the 2014 Standards. It was
under this premise that the NASL submitted its recent application for Division I status on
May 31, 2015, before the USSF announced that new and even more restrictive Pro League
Standards would be proposed.
As the USSF knows, the NASL has had great success in its few short years of
competition. Among other things, NASL teams have won 40% of competitions with MLS teams
in inter-league competitions, MLS poached two NASL teams to join MLS (Montreal and the
currently pending expansion ofMLS into Minneapolis), an NASL player was selected to join the
U.S. men's national team, and the league has already been joined by eleven teams (nine in the
United States and two in Canada), with plans to expand to 13 teams in 2016. NASL has
achieved this rapid success in part because its business model is the opposite of the
unconventional approach that MLS has taken, with NASL teams given much greater operating
and player acquisition freedom than those in the MLS's so-called "single entity" model, much
like other soccer leagues worldwide, and it has seasons modeled more closely on the fall-to-
summer season that is standard in other countries.
With this record of achievement in hand, NASL advised the USSF during its May 31,
2015 Board meeting that although the NASL continued to believe there should be no separate
divisions without relegation and promotion, it was formally applying for-and believed it was
clearly deserving of-Division I status. In its application, the NASL demonstrated that it met all
of the 2014 Standards for Division I, apart from two requirements that served no legitimate
purpose and should therefore be eliminated or waived. In particular, the NASL pointed out that
the requirements that each Division I league have teams located in the Eastern, Central and
Pacific Time Zones, and that each stadium have at least 15,000 seats, had no procompetitive
justification and instead served merely to protect the monopoly position of MLS. These
"standards" thus could not be lawfully enforced to deny the NASL's request to be recognized in
Division I.
In response to the NASL's application for Division I status, the USSF advised the NASL
that it would take no action on the application under the then-current 2014 Standards, and instead
would be revising those standards yet again. The USSF informed the NASL that once those

&STRAWN Page 9
LLP
standards were issued, NASL's application would be considered under the revised standards for
Division I. At the time the USSF gave that response, it knew that its proposed revisions would
make the Pro League Standards even more anticompetitive-not only by heightening the barriers
to the NASL competing with MLS in Division I, but also by creating new, unjustified barriers to
the NASL maintaining even its Division II status, thus threatening its very existence.
IV. The New Proposed Changes to the Pro League Standards Would
Further Entrench the MLS Monopoly and Cannot Be Justified
When the USSF provided the new proposed revisions to the Pro League Standards on
June 24, 2015 (the "2015 Proposal"), it immediately became clear that the new standards were
intended to prevent the NASL or any other future potential competitor from ever being
recognized as a Division I league that could compete with MLS on a level pitch.
First, the 2008 Standards only required that each Division I league have at least ten teams
(§ I.a.i)-a criterion NASL satisfied in 2014. With the 2014 Standards, the USSF increased this
requirement to twelve teams as of the application date, and at least fourteen teams by year three
(§ II.a.i). Accordingly, in an effort to meet this requirement despite its lack of justification,
NASL expanded to eleven teams, and announced plans for a total of up to fifteen teams in the
future. In response, the 2015 Proposal would increase the requirement to sixteen teams(§ II.a.i),
a criterion that the USSF knows NASL cannot meet.
Second, the 2015 Proposal would require that 75% of a Division I league's teams play in
metropolitan markets with over two million people, instead of one million people under the
current rules (§ II.b.ii). The NASL and its owners have invested significant resources locating
teams in markets to meet the current standard of one million residents. The newly proposed
requirement to have teams in markets twice as large-which was never hinted at previously-
serves no purpose other than to heighten the barriers protecting MLS from the competition of
NASL and any other future competitor.
If the reference to "metropolitan markets" in the 2015 Proposal is to Metropolitan
Statistical Areas ("MSAs") as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau, only 31 MSAs over two
million people existed in the United States as of 2014 (the most recent census estimate), in

&STRAWN Page 10
LLP
contrast to 53 MSAs of more than one million people. 8 Canada has only three metropolitan areas
in excess of two million people, but six in excess of one million people. 9 Thus, the 2015
Proposal would nearly cut in half the number of metropolitan areas in the United States and
Canada that would qualify under the new rule (34 instead of 59), and the majority of this
shortened list of qualifying metropolitan areas already have entrenched MLS teams located in
them or are slotted for specific MLS expansion teams. And, even if the NASL could relocate
some of its teams to metropolitan areas with greater than two million people, it likely would have
to abandon some of its current locations, where it has already invested in building fan support,
ownership and infrastructure. Doubling the population criteria now is an anticompetitive bait
and switch, with the purpose of entrenching MLS' s monopoly position at the very time when the
NASL is threatening to become a significant competitor. Revealingly, the 2015 Proposal's
requirement for three-quarters of teams to be located in metropolitan markets with two million
residents is so unreasonably high that even the National Hockey League could not satisfy it. 10
Third, the 2015 Proposal would require that each league in any Division "annually
present its plans for expansion (if any) and growth"-in other words, to participate in formal
exchanges of sensitive competitive information with MLS's and other professional leagues'
representatives on the USSF Board. This requirement would be particularly damaging to the
NASL, as MLS has already lured away two successful franchises from the NASL, and has
repeatedly made "phantom" or "vapor" expansion announcements in cities that the NASL has
targeted for expansion, in order to deter the NASL from expanding into those cities. There is
8
See, e.g., Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April1, 2010 to July 1, 2014- United States-
Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area; and for Puerto Rico, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU,
http://factfmder2.census.gov/bkmk/table/l.O/en/PEP/2014/GCTPEPANNR.US23PR; see also List of Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas (displaying same
data in sortable chart).
9
See, e.g., Population and Dwelling Counts, for Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2011 and
2006 Censuses, GOV'T OF CANADA OFFICIAL WEBSITE, http://wwwl2.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/20 ll/dp-
pdlhlt-fst/pd-pl/Table-Tableau.cfm?LANG=Eng&T=201&S=3&0=D&RPP=l50; see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada (displaying same
data in sortable chart).
10
Nine of the NHL's thirty teams are located in metropolitan areas that had under two million residents when last
counted-specifically, Buffalo, Calgary, Columbus, Edmonton, Nashville, Ottawa, Raleigh, San Jose, and
Winnipeg. See supra notes 8 and 9.

&STRAWN Page 11
LLP
simply no procompetitive justification for this requirement to share sensitive business

information with competitors. 11
V. The USSF Should Not Continue to Violate the Law and Use Its Pro
League Standards to Shield MLS From All Division I Competition
The NASL requests that the USSF eliminate all aspects of its newly proposed Pro League
Standards that serve no legitimate purpose and will have the unlawful effect of further
entrenching MLS as the sole Division I men's professional soccer league in the United States.
The NASL also requests that the existing anticompetitive provisions of the 2014 Standards be
eliminated or waived, and that action be taken either to grant the NASL Division I status or to
eliminate the current division structure entirely and replace it with the global standard of
promotion and relegation. If the USSF does not end its anticompetitive conduct, it will be in
clear violation of both federal and state antitrust laws.
Specifically, it is the position of the NASL that the current and proposed Pro League
Standards, and the efforts of the USSF to enforce them, constitute an unlawful conspiracy in
unreasonable restraint of trade by the USSF and MLS to protect MLS's monopoly position at the
top tier of men's professional soccer in the United States, and to exclude the NASL and other
leagues from competing with MLS. Indeed, this monopoly status for MLS has been the
concerted objective of the USSF and MLS since MLS was founded in 1995, with the 2014
Standards and 2015 Proposal constituting the latest new overt acts by the USSF to effectuate this
continuing conspiracy. As Alan Rothenberg, former head of the USSF and MLS, testified under
oath:
Q .... [Y]our plan said you didn't anticipate there'd be any other
significant domestic league to compete for player services, right?
A. That's right. ...
Q.... [Y]ou asked USSF to only sanction one Division I league,
right?
11
While the USSF has proposed to revise the time zone requirement to go back to requiring teams in three time
zones(§ II.b.i), this change is moot because the 2015 Proposal retains the arbitrary and irrational rule that only U.S.-
based teams located in the continental U.S. count toward satisfying the three-time-zone requirement, and because
the USSF has also proposed other new standards that the NASL cannot meet.

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 12
A. No, that was the plan of the USSF all along. That was in their
1 .... !2
rues
The USSF and MLS's actions to exclude other leagues from competing with MLS in
Division I have severely harmed the NASL. Among other things, fans, broadcasters, sponsors,
potential owners, and players will not recognize NASL as a top-tier league, which makes it
impossible for the NASL to compete on an equal footing with MLS. These harms are worsened
because the USSF, at the urging ofMLS, has given MLS even more competitive advantages by
virtue of its Division I status. For example, as a result of being the sole Division I league, three
of the United States' four berths in the CONCACAF Champions League are reserved for MLS
teams-leaving just one berth for the winner of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. And, in the
U.S. Open Cup, MLS teams receive a further advantage because all of them effectively receive
"byes" for the first several rounds of the tournament, while non-Division I teams receive fewer
rounds of byes. Moreover, the Professional Referee Organization, which is jointly governed and
funded by the USSF and MLS, has assigned lesser quality referees to NASL games due to the
NASL not having Division I status, directly impairing the quality of NASL's product and its
ability to compete with MLS.
On top of all this, the USSF provides a clear competitive advantage to MLS by permitting
MLS to have up to eight foreign players per team, while capping foreign players at seven for
non-Division I teams. Absent these limits, other leagues could better compete with MLS by
adding additional high quality players from across the world, and increasing the overall quality
of competition on the pitch-something that MLS has refused to do, as it has tied its own hands
with a system that has produced an inferior product. This has adversely affected not just the
ability ofNASL to compete with MLS, but the overall quality of the game for fans, sponsors and
other stakeholders in U.S. soccer.
The NASL seeks, and has the legal right, to compete with MLS on a level pitch without
the anticompetitive barriers created jointly by the USSF and MLS. It now urges the USSF to
recognize its legal obligations and to take the following actions:
12
Trial Tr. 3652:9-3653:24, Fraser v. Major League Soccer, No. 1:97-cv-10342 (D. Mass.) (emphasis added).

&STRAWN
LLP
Page 13
• The USSF must either (i) abolish the multi-tier Division structure entirely; or (ii)
remove all facets of the current 2014 Standards and 2015 Proposal that have no
procompetitive purpose and serve to entrench the MLS monopoly, including in
particular the requirements, discussed above, relating to the minimum number of
teams, time zones, stadium seating capacity, metropolitan market size, and
sharing of annual reports of growth plans.
• The USSF must then process the application of the NASL, assuming the Division
structure remains intact, and grant it Division I status so it may compete on a level
playing field against MLS.
As I am sure the USSF is aware, it has no immunity from U.S. antitrust laws to conspire
with MLS to grant it a protected monopoly position in Division I men's professional soccer in
the United States, even if the USSF believes there should be only one Division I league. The
marketplace, not the USSF, must determine the extent to which MLS and the NASL succeed or
fail in their economic competition with each other. Such unrestrained and healthy competition
will only strengthen U.S. soccer and serve the interests of all of the USSF's constituents,
including, most importantly, soccer fans. The NASL looks forward to promptly discussing these
issues with you so that all legal issues can hopefully be resolved, and the business of men's
professional soccer in this country can move forward in a competitive market without further
impediment or delay.
cc: Bill Peterson

Rishi Sehgal

2015 Letter From NASL Opposing Changes To Professional League Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Letter From NASL Opposing Changes To Professional League Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:17-cv-05495-MKB-ST Document 26-3 Filed 10/16/17 Page 2 of 264 PageID #: 1218

WINSTON 200 Park Avenue

Re: Professional League Standards

Dear Mr. Gulati and Mr. Flynn:

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23,2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

of those things . . . [T]he actual opinions of . . . me and the

1995 Division I Standards 2008 Division I Standards 2014 Division I Standards

§ II(b)(i): Must have U.S.-based

WINSTON July 23,2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

simply no procompetitive justification for this requirement to share sensitive business

WINSTON July 23, 2015

WINSTON July 23, 2015

cc: Bill Peterson

You might also like