It was posted on the club's youtube
SoCal Elite - exit stage left
- Thread starter Action Jackson
- Start date
Your fiction is probably the most factual comment in this thread.
Good luck being a new club these days. I know one club that got most of their top players snatched after the club developed them as youths. When player is about to be a teen, the wolf would come and offer free rides to the clubs top players. That is unfair and its not right. Something has to change you guys. Poaching other clubs top players or any player for that matter is wrong. Also, Docs who lie to steal players is also wrong or Doc who lie to keep players, like telling dad that your dd will play in ABCD league but then the next week tell dad & player that your actually playing in a brand new league called XYZ Elite and don't worry, the scouts will still come, I promise you that daddy (sucker!!!) This is after dad paid in full for 10% discount.
That's not what this is though. It's an agreement not to hold tryouts during a window. They are free to solicit each others players at will during the window.
The problem with this type of anticompetitive analysis is that agreements between competitors become illegal only if they restrict competition. If the effect is pro-competitive (again, from a market perspective, not from 1 individual consumer), then there isn't an issue. In this case, the argument is that it prevents players from being left without a team mid season or during state cup because other players are off looking for new clubs. Hypothetical: Say there's a mega club that's gobbling up a bunch of smaller clubs so a league adopts a rule that a club can have no more than 2 teams per tier. The mega club complains this limits their rise to dominance. The argument against it is it's actually pro competitive because it prevents the mega club from forming a monopoly and gives the consumers options. That's why your argument, when applied to new clubs, who might be locked out of Surf and Slammers is clever. As applied to Surf and Slammers it's mediocre, because it falls into this type of competition analysis.
You used to complain when I went into your balliwick with COVID. How come you now waxing lyrical on competition law? I guess turnabout if fair play.Interesting they didn't respond the merits of the allegation. We still don't know really what's going on. Unless they provided more details to their families, the families don't know either.
What more is there to say when the whole entire soccer community got the email from SoCal including the allegations and the "go get their players" permission?
Very unlikely any attorney would touch this case! If you believe it so strongly, go ahead and file the case. There are treble damages for antitrust violations. So if it was a strong case, there would be competent lawyers all over it. But there will not be.
When I originally read the rule, my understanding was that no recruiting activity was allowed during the blackout period. Since reading GraceT's last post, I now see that there is no express prohibition on recruiting, at least when it comes to clubs and coaches. However, parents are not free to solicit players during the black-out period. The Tryout Policy specifically states: "Parents CAN NOT recruit players from other clubs/teams to join their club/team." I wonder if the tryout rule makes any sense at all if a coach can recruit, but a parent cannot.
Gotta say, I have enjoyed the back and forth on this.
Gotta say, I have enjoyed the back and forth on this.
Last edited:
Parents are the best recruiters. One Doc tried to get my dd to get a parents # and I never knew why until you pointed out the rules. No wonder he didnt just ask my wife.
RedDevil24
BRONZE
Grace T and toucan, gotta say this is one of the more interesting and productive threads I have read on this board. Thanks to you both for your insight, and for reminding me why I never considered going to law school lol.
This is a really good point. I don't know how that rule is even enforceable.
Do the parents sign a contract with that constraint?
Other players are the best recruiters.
1. When my kid was playing SoCal I don't remember signing anything with the league. Hard to establish privity of contract that way.
2. It could have been incorporated into the policies and procedures the club had me click through, but those adhesion contracts are tough. Who reads them. I certainly wouldn't look to see what the try out policy is.
3. The coaches/club probably isn't expressly prohibited because of the line drawing problem: does that ban advertisement (SoCal Elite is one of the most prolific advertizers but then many of them would get kicked out including AYSO United if advertising is an offense)? All advertisement of any kind for the club during the window that doesn't have anything to do with a tryout, free camp or kickaround? What about coaches that have as their side gig lessons for how to become an elite player...if they mention to their nonteam players there is a space on the team, is that a violation. And when is the line drawn when the player him or herself approaches the coach (as opposed to vice versa)....does the coach then have to say sorry I can't talk to you? But players are allowed to transfer so how does that work?
4. Best guess the reason they stuck that in there was to stop clubs from telling the parents "we can't do tryouts, kickarounds, or camps, but if you guys want to host a get together for potential kids, I'll show up and have a word with them....we can't do it but you can". They can hold the club to account for that behavior.
SOCAL has transfer policies in place that allow players to transfer if meeting the criteria to do so. 1)be paid in full to the club you are leaving OR 2)get the DOC from the club you are leaving to just say yes. Then, there are transfer windows. The transfer window for the ulittles State Cup was 12/1. Players could release and transfer by 12/1 as long as 1 of 2 criteria was met. This also applied to the season. Meet 1 of 2 of the criteria and players could gain a release and transfer to another club. After the 12/1 date, players could not transfer. This helps in keeping teams together for State Cup for sure. The 2014-2017 teams, existing and new, could have tryouts to build teams in December and add non-SOCAL players. The next tryout window is February 13 for the 2009-2013. This is after 80% of the teams in the 2011 and younger have been eliminated from State Cup so having tryouts during this time makes sense as those players are done with their commitment to their 2022/23 team. Realistically, the players still in State Cup are happy and may not be going anywhere but they can tryout too, they just can't prior to that date. As members of SOCAL, clubs all sign contracts agreeing to the rules and policies of the league, including the Transfer and Tryout Policy. When 99% of the membership follow the rules and the 1% refuses to, do you cave to the 1% or support the 99%? When the 1% is asked repeatedly to comply with the rules and fail, or refuse, to do so are the 99% supposed to sit by and accept that? Do you allow the 1% a competitive advantage over the 99% by letting them hold tryouts and illegally transfer players to State Cup rosters when the 99% aren't doing that? What message does that send the 99%? Of course players can do whatever they want but the clubs, by membership of the league, are bound to the rules and policies of the league and those that don't follow those rules and policies simply don't belong in the league. The league only enforces the policies as set forth by the membership. The Tryout Policy was approved by 99.9% of the membership as a way to try and control the chaos around tryouts. The club in question was one of the 99.9% that voted to approve the rule and then violated it.
Is the league wrong to remove the 1% and sacrifice the integrity of the 99% that complied with their own rule?
Is the league wrong to remove the 1% and sacrifice the integrity of the 99% that complied with their own rule?
It sure looks like an agreement that club B won't solicit club A customers until after club A has had time to sign contracts.That's not what this is though. It's an agreement not to hold tryouts during a window. They are free to solicit each others players at will during the window.
The problem with this type of anticompetitive analysis is that agreements between competitors become illegal only if they restrict competition. If the effect is pro-competitive (again, from a market perspective, not from 1 individual consumer), then there isn't an issue. In this case, the argument is that it prevents players from being left without a team mid season or during state cup because other players are off looking for new clubs. Hypothetical: Say there's a mega club that's gobbling up a bunch of smaller clubs so a league adopts a rule that a club can have no more than 2 teams per tier. The mega club complains this limits their rise to dominance. The argument against it is it's actually pro competitive because it prevents the mega club from forming a monopoly and gives the consumers options. That's why your argument, when applied to new clubs, who might be locked out of Surf and Slammers is clever. As applied to Surf and Slammers it's mediocre, because it falls into this type of competition analysis.
Am I missing something?
It seems there is an agreement between the league and their customers (clubs) that standardize ‘open’ tryout windows… Similar to collegiate signing windows.
The customers of the clubs (parents/players) are open to solicit other clubs and sign with them at any time, so long as they fulfill any financial obligations to the club their leaving and/or get approval to transfer from the DOC.
To @dad4’s point. Club A can sign their players at any time and Club B can sign any player at any time, only if contact is initiated by the player/parent, not recruitment activities of Club B or related parties outside of the tryout window. (I don’t believe advertising tryout dates that comply with the tryout window are violations of this policy)
All other league players, CalSouth, ECNL/RL, E64, GA, MLS/EA, Non Affiliated Rec Programs, etc. are all open season all year long to SoCal clubs and that’s the bucket SoCal Elite now finds themselves in.
As n00b points out the players are free to leave as long as they’ve fulfilled their obligations.
the claim we were discussing here was from solcal elite. It’s hard to say SoCal elite has a competition claim because it’s in the same boat as all the other clubs. It hasn’t been disadvantaged relative to the other clubs.
but now you’ve suggested that the clubs will repressure their own members to sign instead of looking elsewhere before tryouts begin (btw that behavior you suggest might also be occurring at SoCal elite which would mean their hands are tainted too). That’s a consumer claim, however, not a competition claim brought in state antitrust, restraint of non compete (since it’s the club bound by the restraint), or unfair competition. The main way the consumer gets a remedy under those theories is if the state ag, doj or ftc bring a claim on behalf of the consumers after launching a lengthy and costly investigation (been through a ton of those in several different countries and states) Otherwise you are talking consumer protection actions against the clubs (not the league since they aren’t in privity of contract with the league). That’s not competition law and not in my wheelhouse so I can’t comment.
Btw the point you are referring to goes to the issue of “standing”. It would be hard for SoCal elite to make a claim on behalf of consumers particularly if it is doing the same behavior as the other clubs (pressuring parents to sign before tryouts). If not from the government the consumer would have to sue directly (California does allow limited claims for indirect buyers in various instances under the Cartwright act…not sure about the others) but theres quite a few hurdles to jump and getting together things like class actions are complicated. Again haven’t done anything on the consumer side of things, it’s complicated and outside my wheelhouse.
whatithink
GOLD
I'd assume that any club in SoCal that also has teams in the letter leagues can have tryouts for those letter teams outside any SoCal windows and can sign any SoCal player any time they want (to the letter leagues). The SoCal players in turn can dump a SoCal team and move to a letter team any time they want and ignore any of the existing transfer constraints up to and including being of good standing and/or getting DOC sign off
The premise that all clubs are in the same doesn't seem to be correct, to me, as a lot of those clubs have plenty of toes in other leagues and can have tryouts and recruit outside any SoCal windows for those leagues.
Each league has its own sacrosanct transfer policy, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are not the only show in town. Any player, it seems to me, can move between leagues, ignoring those policies (& club colluding or driving this) providing the registering entity (that the player is registered with) doesn't conflict - or even if it does!