NIL Zone logo
Rendered Soccer stadium. View from mobile

Sports Ruling

By: Douglas M. Depeppe

For everyone with kids playing youth soccer and fans of the game, the U.S. Soccer Federation has a big problem on its hands with State Associations engaging in protectionist practices. Flatirons Rush Soccer Club won its grievance (and overcame the Colorado Soccer Association appeal before USSF), after exposing what the independent arbitrator characterized as “de facto exclusive geographic areas for existing CSA member clubs”. The arbitrator also cited another recent grievance against a State Association which asserted: “Grassroots soccer is not and cannot be the province of political or monetary-driven decision making if the sport is to continue to grow successfully“.

The Grievance Decisions area of the USSF website USSF Grievance Decisions is now replete with case after case involving State Associations engaged in restraint of trade practices to protect existing clubs and barring new clubs and innovative models from entering the youth soccer ecosystem. Note of caution to the governing bodies of soccer in the US: A 2020 law, The Empowering Athletes Act, imposes new oversight responsibilities and a recurring four-year audit of National Governing Bodies (NGB) of sport.

National Governing Bodies

Will federal antitrust law emerge is an oversight issue over State Associations? Looking at the problem revealed from all those USSF Grievances by new clubs against State Associations – and the Flatirons Rush case against the Colorado Soccer Assn as a good example – ridding the system of protectionism looks to be a needed oversight area!

Share your thoughts

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.