Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A federal jury in Boston has rejected an antitrust action against Major League Soccer and the United States Soccer Federation brought by players claiming that the defendants have conspired to establish a monopoly, restrain competition and keep down salaries. On Dec. 11, the jury determined that Major League Soccer does not have a monopoly in the market for professional soccer players because the players have the option of finding jobs in leagues outside the United States, noted lead defense counsel Michael Cardozo of New York’s Proskauer Rose. Because the jury found no monopoly power in the relevant market, it did not rule on the other antitrust charges claimed by the plaintiffs, Cardozo said. In 1993, the U.S. Soccer Federation selected Major League Soccer over several other applicants as the only major professional soccer league in the United States, said Cardozo. This selection was made final in 1995, and the league started in 1996. The league has teams in 12 U.S. cities, Cardozo said. Unlike most professional sports leagues, Major League Soccer was set up as a single limited liability company. All teams are owned by the league, said Cardozo; investors are given the right to own one of the teams. The league sets salaries for all players, he added. In 1997, eight professional soccer players sued the league and the federation, charging violations of antitrust regulations. The plaintiffs were certified as a class that year, said plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler of New York’s Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Fraser v. Major League Soccer, No. 97-10342 (D. Mass.). The plaintiffs contended that the process of selecting Major League Soccer as the only top-level professional league in the United States violated Sec. II of the Sherman Antitrust Act and that the league’s single-entity structure violates Sec. I. In April, District Judge George O’Toole dismissed the latter claim. The eight plaintiffs were seeking a total of $1.4 million, to be trebled. The plaintiffs will appeal the jury’s decision as well as Judge O’Toole’s rulings, said Kessler.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.