USSF, CSA, PRFF, TOA and USL to Meet Sunday to Resolve Dispute
Inside Minnesota Soccer has learned that United States Soccer Federation (USSF) president Sunil Gulati called a meeting for Sunday that will include the parties of the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA), the Puerto Rican Football Federation (PRFF), the Team Owners Association (TOA) and United Soccer Leagues (USL).
Details of the meeting are sketchy except that the parties will be meeting in New York and the USSF hopes to have a clear path of direction by the conclusion of the meetings. It was also learned that all parties were given a gag order this past week which is why all was quiet except for Rochester Rhino’s owner Rob Clark who announced on Monday his organization was moving to the TOA’s NASL League. A source close to the situation told IMS the USSF was not at all happy with Clark’s announcement on Monday.
Theories abound on both sides and the reality is, no one knows exactly what USSF’s plans are. However, the inclusion of the CSA and the PRFF could very well be to make sure all associations are on the same track. This would certainly be important if the TOA with their NASL decided to defy a USSF decision against them and play unsanctioned. That would be frowned upon by FIFA. If the TOA’s NASL League was not sanctioned it would most likely not be as big a deal to the US teams who would be excluded from the US Open Cup. However, it would have a bigger effect on Montreal and Vancouver of Canada because of the Voyageurs Cup which allows those two teams and Toronto FC to compete for the chance to represent Canada in the CONCACAF Champions League. This would also be true of the Puerto Rico Islanders with the CFU Club Championship.
The TOA has already spent a good deal of time moving forward with their league and it was reported within the last several weeks that organizationally, things were moving ahead nicely. With the time and money invested in the league, one would have to wonder if the TOA would be willing to accept a USSF decision that went against them.
One last thought, with all the possibilities of lawsuits and counter lawsuits, it’s not entirely out of the question for FIFA to come down with a decision much like what happened in Chile last week. Evidently FIFA does not approve of civil or government intervention in 
soccer and will take appropriate steps to make sure that doesn’t happen. A dispute had arisen with the use of an illegal player on a team who were then relegated to a lower league because it was deducted points. The team took the league to court and FIFA immediately ruled that unless the team dropped the suit and accepted the decision, they could suspend Chile from FIFA and the country would lose its opportunity to play in the World Cup in 2010. Markus Kattner, FIFA’s deputy secretary general penned a letter to the Chilean soccer federation to persuade the Rangers to drop their appeal or face sanctions “in accordance with Article 64, Sec. 3 of the FIFA statutes.” Within days the dispute was settled and the team accepted the decision.
(see below for Article 64, Sec. 3 of the FIFA statute)
Hold onto your hats folks. This coming week could usher in resolution or could set off even more drama for the USL and breakaway NASL.
3. The Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the Association or disputes affecting Leagues, members of Leagues, clubs, members of clubs, Players, Officials and other Association Officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIFA regulations or binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the Association or Confederation or to CAS.
The Associations shall also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the Association, if necessary by imposing a binding obligation on its members. The Associations shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law.
Comments are closed.
That would really blow if the USSF didn’t give NASL the sanctionning it needs.
My question is, did the USSF invite both NASL and USL to force them to «work things out?», or were they both invited to give either party some bad news?
I wondered why all the news had dried up all of a sudden. Thanks for posting that.
I look forward to hearing your take on this after the results of Sunday come out. I love the internet for the fact that best reporting on the USL/NASL situation is a Minnesota Soccer Blog.
Nice work.
The USSF is a organization with a political bent. It is not what you know, but who you know and following the path of least resistance. Organizationally, the NASL guys do not have the pull within the USSF …yet. To significantly upset the apple cart would be to provide an outright sanction to the NASL which will lead to law suits, injunctions and a distraction from the game. All this during a year of potential labor unrest in the MLS and the World Cup. As I outlined before, the USSF is going to call for a year-long “cooling off” period and “promote” a compromise between the 2 parties. If USSF sanctioning was not that important to the NASL and they would go rogue regardless, it would not be their stated fulcrum for which all future development has been predicated. And the least of the USSF concerns during 2010 is the impact of fewer teams participating in the US Open Cup. The tournament may be important to BigSoccernistas but in 2010 it will be a lower priority to the USSF.
There will be a forced compromise.
“USSF hopes to have a clear path of direction by the conclusion of the meetings.”
I doubt they will get this cleared up in 1 day. Hats off to USSF if they do.
Great note
Right now I don’t see how the USSF could not sanction the NASL.
Forcing some sort of compromise where the runaway teams rejoin the USL would just create even more bad blood between the TOA and the USL FO.
The fact that the TOA has stated publically that they don’t mind getting Canada’s Div 1 or 2 status to run the league if the USSF does not give it, or even play unsanctioned, pushes the USSF into a corner.
Frankly after meeting Holt and Marco’s several times throughout the years and finding them to be a bit…rude…I would not be surprised if the USSF says that the USL is now Div 3.
Should be an interesting week.
Robert, Mr. Holt has never been anything but very polite and accommodating to me. That is when he answers my phone calls or emails which most often is pretty hard to get him to do. But that is no different than any one of these guys who are so busy with things these day and quite frankly pick and choose who they talk to on the basis of how the press will spin things for them. This is true of both sides, TOA and USL.
Last week I would have thought that perhaps the new league could have played under the CSA but with this move I am doubtful. Also, as someone brought up once, the USSF law says 75% of the teams in a league need to be from the US. It could be that the CSA has a similar rule?
I would think FIFA would have big issues with the CSA sanctioning American teams to get the league launched… Considering that the majority making up the league would be American and its a can of worms FIFA has always stayed away from…
Completely different situation to Wellington in the A-League, Welsh clubs in England, etc…those are a small minority.
I’m of the belief that US Soccer will force the two back together, USL will have to take back all TOA clubs, save perhaps Minnesota if they’re still delinquent… Would hope this doesn’t devolve into something that threatens the US going to the World Cup, considering not one player playing for any of these teams has the slightest chance of going.
I don’t see the USSF not sanctioning this league.
Jeff, from everything I’m hearing and this is hearsay, I think you are correct. I expect some sort of a compromise. Remember folks, compromise usually means no party is happy with the result.
SR, I think it’s very possible the USSF doesn’t sanction them. However, as your comment shows, there are a lot of people that have gotten behind the TOA train and it’s got a lot of momentum right now. Because of that, the USSF will have to deal with a lot of flack and if this is a decision they make. The USL will be forced to take everyone back in as Jeff says except perhaps MN because I can’t see the USSF forcing that issue when they owe monies they don’t have.
It could be that they will demand the USL to do certain functions as registering players and making schedules, and giving other functions over to the TOA or creating a new system within USL to run USL-1, where the team owners have a much greater say.
If FIFA gets involved I hope that they look at what is best for the growth of soccer within North America. The rules of FIFA should be used as guidelines as what is best for Europe does not work best for North America.
The MLS and USL has franchises in Canada and the NASL had franchises in Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver so I do not see how Canadian teams in the new NASL can be used against them.
If the new NASL gets turned down I see them setting up shop out of Canada. This should satisfy both the MLS and USSF.
Of course everything here is speculation at this time but I hope all parties look at what is best for soccer before they look at what is best for their own interests.
Joey Saputo, Traffic and Jeff Cooper will not just roll over on this.
Note #1 to SR.
Read above post concerning Chile.
Note #2 to SR.
Joey Saputo is for whatever works for Joey Saputo at this point and time. Don’t over estimate him. People are saying he is wavering again. He wants MLS and if he thinks pulling away from FIFA and US Soccer will hurt his chances, he will do what he needs to do.
USSF would be stupid not to approve the NASL. Regardless of what their position is in the “soccer world,” they are still subject to federal anti-trust laws.
If the USSF compromise mandates the USL relinquish control over all macro functions, like expansion, appointment of a commissioner, national sponsors, marketing and promotion, etc. they will be getting the vast majority of their stated objectives. They will be USL in name only. They will not be happy and the USL/Nurock will give up this league control very reluctantly but that is what compromise means. Nobody will be happy but the USSF is not going to sanction 2 leagues during 2010. I am sure they would have hoped the 2 parties could have found this solution themselves but obviously the personalities got in the way of rational business discourse.
jmb321: plz eplain how it’s “rational business” to force teams to play in a league that they don’t want to be in and whether you think that will give those owners incentive to invest a lot into their teams kthxbye
i have been told from very good sources that CSA and PRFF will not be present at Monday’s meetings between USSF, USL and TOA/NASL
The reference to Chile’s recent league dust-up works out as effectively a wash for both sides. For those teams that are in the TOA that are trying for the MLS, the USSF has additional leverage in forcing them to accept any decision within FIFA’s parameters. But just as importantly, for those teams that do not have MLS ambitions (CP Baltimore being one of them), what happened in Chile gives them huge amounts of leverage over USSF. Unless Gulati et al find some way to accommodate these owners, the threat of litigation — including an antitrust suit — might force a reaction from FIFA (although this is unlikely) and any such reaction can only be directed towards those falling within the ambit of the USSF itself.
As it stands, I can’t imagine anyone holding a trump card over anyone else, and that if something is going to be worked out, it will have to be on the TOA’s terms since anything done will be in response to these owners’ actions.
I, for one, am hoping the TOA threatens an anti-trust suit. Not only would it scare USSF, but it would be a strong case: by not sanctioning the NASL when the league clearly has enough teams, money, and validity to survive – far more so than USL-1 at this point – the USSF would be attempting to restrict competition in a way that would probably interest the courts.
I’ll say this, too: if Don Garber, in his role as “mediator”, plays any kind of role in a settlement that denies St. Louis yet another pro team, it’ll be time for pipe bombs.
Fans in most of these markets just have to wonder what league their team will be playing in. Since the USL-1 rights to St. Louis are owned by the St. Louis Lions (who’ve shown no sign of actually exercising them by fielding a USL-1 team), a forced compromise could very well mean no pro men’s soccer in St. Louis at all for 2010 and probably beyond. With the way they shafted the fans in Cleveland, I don’t expect NuRock to care, but I hope Cooper has made enough friends and greased enough palms so that St. Louis winds up with a team in whatever league winds up playing in 2010.
My expected compromise: forcing the TOA/NASL owners to “buy” USL1 from NuRock to get USSF sanctioning. They would leave the USL name, USL2, and the PDL with NuRock and enough money to get NuRock not to sue. Then NASL is sanctioned at Division 2 and a single USL league is sanctioned as Division 3. Thoughts?
Daniel, I think that would be great, and probably the only compromise that wouldn’t lead to further lawsuits. Word is that NuRock only paid a few million for all of USL, so whatever the NASL would pay them to make USL-1 go away probably wouldn’t break the bank.
southsidered- The TOA club owners have tried to work with USL management for a least 2 years to gain control over the major issues that effect the league and are a detriment to positive growth. If the USL management is forced to relinquish that control completely the TOA should be satisfied albeit reluctantly. In fact, the several USL team owners and club management I have talked to have been quite complementary about USL’s limited administrative duties like scheduling, player registration and referee assignments. But that is all. The TOA club owners would gladly relinquish these functions to the USL for a small fee. So essentially what will be forced is USL giving up full control to the TOA Board of Governors while the teams continue to play under the USL umbrella. Believe me nobody is going to like this solution but the USSF is not going to want to sanction and have 2 Divisions II leagues playing in 2010. The are trying to stop the lawyers from getting involved which might raise the eyebrows of FIFA as in Chile. Also, I would suspect that this would be only a year mandate by the USSF whereby the 2 groups can work their differences out or fully seperate during 2011. The TOA may even may look upon 2010 as a year to get their administrative function and marketing plana in order if the short term solution with USL does not work out.
I’m actually surprised that MLS is not hinted at being present.
Enough is enough… Sanction the NASL, USSF. USL-1 is DEAD. Do not become the Obama Adminstration and prop up a FAILED league. They were reckless, didn’t listen to their owners and they are getting their due.
It needs to end this weekend with NASL being the U.S. 2nd Division and USL (what’s left of it) as Division 3. PERIOD… ENOUGH!!
“I’m actually surprised that MLS is not hinted at being present.”
I also noted the lack of mention of MLS.
They technically shouldn’t be, but I think it would be a good thing if NASL/USL formed better partnerships with MLS, and developing players for top tier soccer in the US.
Pipe dream? Probably…
The USSF is not going to do anything that is not in MLS’ best interests. So MLS not being present is not an issue.
NASL will NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM BE SANCTIONED.
Whether they should be is another issue. USL has consistently failed its clubs. Unless you are a USL employee or associated with Nike, that much cannot be debated.
But my sources indicate the USSF has set this meeting up to tell the NASL/TOA teams they must return to USL for this season. If they refuse they will be told to close shop.
MLS is going through a CBA negotiation and the league’s bargaining position is weakened by a strong start up second division with big clubs in big markets. USSF is with MLS management and not with the players and do not want the players having a fail safe should they feel the need to strike.
This is classic hardball and the USSF holds all the chips. NASL/TOA has ZERO chance of being sanctioned and ZERO chance of playing this year.
If I were in Minnesota, Carolina or Miami, I would be very concerned that I will not have a team playing this season.
Footy Guru: They can field an unsanctioned league as has been mentioned above. There are greater consequences for the Canadian teams than the US teams but it can certainly happen. I don’t think USSF really has many chips at all. CSA has more chips than they do I think. Anyways, it’s all speculation until we hear how things went.
Guys, Guys, GUYS. I didn’t hear anything about MLS so I didn’t mention MLS. I appreciate your confidence in me but that doesn’t mean MLS isn’t present and I am sure they are. Don Garber sits on the USSF committee that helps to make these decisions. He was there at the last meeting at the MLS Cup weekend and I’m sure he will be there again this weekend.
If anyone involved with USSF thinks they “hold all the chips,” they are both delusional and dangerous. The USSF is in a precarious position and coming across as anything but a neutral arbitror may have devastating consequences on U.S. soccer overall.
Keeping lawyers out of this mess is absolutely essential for the USSF (and probably in the interest of all parties) and I cannot fathom any basis for an assertion that the TOA can be forced to do anything at the moment.
But if the USSF believes differently, I hope that the TOA owners will seriously think about getting counsel more heavily involved and I, for one, would be thrilled for the opportunity.
Footy Guru:
If the players strike they can’t go play for another league. The idea that NASL is bargaining chip for the MLSPU is wrong. Also, other than Vancouver (who is leaving for MLS) and Montreal (who want to go to MLS) who is a big club in a big market? Atlanta, CPB, and Miami aren’t big clubs while Carolina ard Rochester aren’t big markets (and it’s debatable if they’re big clubs either). Tampa is really an unkown, if Cooper had enough money for a “big club” he’d have an MLS franchise, and we don’t even if Minnesota exists anymore.
http://blogs.democratandchronicle.com/devo/2009/12/06/no-magic-at-key-meeting-in-nyc/
No Miracle compromise according to Rhino’s Clark
“This is classic hardball and the USSF holds all the chips. NASL/TOA has ZERO chance of being sanctioned and ZERO chance of playing this year.”
Definitive statements of this sort are always a good read, particularly when they are not connected in any visible way to tangible evidence. Honestly, I do not know if I have ever seen a less clear example of “hardball”. Playing hardball against whom? To what end? MLS is going to risk poisoning relationships to better their CBA position? Only one thing is clear right now: Everyone is making it up as they go along.
Unless one is directly involved in the decision making, one has ZERO idea of what is actually going to happen.
USSF will not play hard ball they will try to convince all the parties to come to a compromise my guess is it will include full sanctioning of the NASL in some way shape or form (maybe not till next year). I am sure there will be incentives offered to both the USL and NASL what those may be I do not know. At the end of the day there are going to be business minded people at the table which means the USSF really hold no hardball bargaining chips that are legal if challenged, US law is completely on the side of the NASL when it comes to starting there own league, and on the side of the USL when it comes to potential contract violations by individual teams. Take soccer politics out and this becomes strictly business. The law is on the buisness side not the politics side. I hope common sense wins out and the Minnesota Thunder Kicking Striker Vikings become a reality (Come on Ziggy own a real Football team).
My worry in all this is lawyers and FIFA. Around the rest of the world, despite their being an extra-national organization, the power of soccer consistently wins over the local legal system. However, this is the US. I can very easily imagine that, if the parties were determined enough, the courts would be more than happy to take the case, and let the case take its course, no matter what FIFA says. Our legal system would not care about what FIFA says, and if the lawyers didn’t care, then it’s all to easy for me to imagine FIFA yanking the US from the World Cup, and the lawyers and legal system not caring. I’m probably being alarmist here, but I always have to remember that soccer in the US is still different from the rest of the world.
The problem I think you’ll have with an unsanctioned league is what happens to the players. Some of the folks in USL-1 are full internationals for their nations. They’ll get barred from playing for FIFA right quick if they play for an unsanctioned league.
Similarly, if you have players trying to get sold up to better, sanctioned leagues, unsanctioned status will be a big roadblock in the paying of transfer fees.
I’m not sure I understand. Are there any big reasons for the new NASL not to be sanctioned?
One of the most reasonable reasons is to not set a precedent of allowing groups to just go and form their own league.
@ BUSA Bulldog:
And yet, that’s how every single league anywhere in the world was started. They either formed up from scratch or formed up from the remnants of a pre-existing league.
Chase, some very good points.
CM, There are plenty of reasons and if the USSF does not sanction them I’m sure you will hear of them.