SoCal Elite - exit stage left

[michael91208]

According to the policy, yes. Uness the player was from a team already wihtin the same club.

I confirmed with SoCal last year when this first came out that individual players trying out for teams from any club, where the initiation of the contact came from the player or family, was NOT a violation of the rules.
The prohibition is for advertising tryouts or having organized events where recruiting activities occurred. So it wouldn’t apply to clinics, for example.

any player is free to try out for any team at any time and transfer to any club that will accept them. So long as no one affiliated with the receiving club, parents or staff, initiated the contact, it’s allowed.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Under California law, non-compete and non-solicitation contracts are illegal. You cannot enter into an agreement to not solicit anothers' customers, or to not recruit another's employees. The policies underlying the rule are that such agreements restrain competition and prevent employees from earning their true worth.

If a private organization (such as a gaming league like CSL, ECNL, or Socal) has a rule prohibiting a club or coach from recruiting players, then the league has prohibited them from soliciting customers, because players are customers who pay money to be on a team. The players lose opportunities and the clubs lose money. The gaming league's rule is illegal under both B&P 16600 (covenants not to compete) and B&P 17200 (unfair business practices). A gaming league which enforces the illegal contractual provision is subject to treble damages.

Here, a gaming league kicked out a member club for violating a rule which was itself illegal. The league then told its remaining members that it is now permissible to recruit the former member's players. The banned club is going to lose players and teams in droves. Damages would be very easy to prove.

In my view, the league should take a step back, revise its tryout rules so that they comport with law, and enter into a settlement with its former member to bring it back into the league.

This seems fairly easy to prove because $$$ is involved.

Could the same type of uncompetitive behaviour laws be used to protect players or more specifically consumers of the product (ie parents)

To me it's always felt weird that clubs could drop players if they sensed (or found out somehow) that they were trying out at other clubs. While at the same time encouraging players from other clubs to tryout at their business.

 

[crush]

Under California law, non-compete and non-solicitation contracts are illegal. You cannot enter into an agreement to not solicit anothers' customers, or to not recruit another's employees. The policies underlying the rule are that such agreements restrain competition and prevent employees from earning their true worth.

If a private organization (such as a gaming league like CSL, ECNL, or Socal) has a rule prohibiting a club or coach from recruiting players, then the league has prohibited them from soliciting customers, because players are customers who pay money to be on a team. The players lose opportunities and the clubs lose money. The gaming league's rule is illegal under both B&P 16600 (covenants not to compete) and B&P 17200 (unfair business practices). A gaming league which enforces the illegal contractual provision is subject to treble damages.

Here, a gaming league kicked out a member club for violating a rule which was itself illegal. The league then told its remaining members that it is now permissible to recruit the former member's players. The banned club is going to lose players and teams in droves. Damages would be very easy to prove.

In my view, the league should take a step back, revise its tryout rules so that they comport with law, and enter into a settlement with its former member to bring it back into the league.

Great legal mind. The parents are the paying customer, not the player. We pay so our kids can play. If the coach and or Doc are abusive, then you should have the right to leave to find a safe place. CA 100% is a "right to club hop" State in youth soccer. The crap they pulled on my dd was BS. "Please, please let us leave. We just want to leave." They even hired fact checkers to keep a check on what I posted on here. Crazy ass control freaks who kiss so much ass, it stays on their nose forever. Retaliation, threats from dads, blacklisted, blackballed and flat out kicked out of a gaming league all because.

 

[crush]

This seems fairly easy to prove because $$$ is involved.

Could the same type of uncompetitive behaviour laws be used to protect players or more specifically consumers of the product (ie parents)

To me it's always felt weird that clubs could drop players if they sensed (or found out somehow) that they were trying out at other clubs. While at the same time encouraging players from other clubs to tryout at their business.

We need protection for the player and the player needs to have rights. This is a cult, 100%. I got cornered & harassed by a Doc one night when the Doc heard a rumor that we might be leaving after State Cup. It was ugly, disgusting and super alarming the things that came out of Docs mouth. I told the Doc truth and that it was not a rumor, but true, we moving to another soccer family after the season Doc and just deal with it. Oh ya, he sure did and my kid paid a price for dad being truthful. Cult!!!!

 

[crush]

Yes. That is what I am saying. Players (really their parents) are the "customers." Under the current tryout rule, players are allowed to transfer to a new club or team. However, no club or coach is allowed to reach out to a player to inform them of the opportunity. This impairs the player from learning about all of his or her choices, which makes it more difficult to make an informed decision about whether to exercise the option to move to a new team. Denying a player a source of information may prevent the player from moving to a better opportunity.

Excellent correction! This is California Gold speak. Some of these Docs and clubs think they own the rights to the player. and if you try to leave the family, they will make your dd life a living hell. Hell for a dd just trying to play youth soccer. Karma is coming, hold your horses. I'm still SMFH after being told I better STFU or else. Retaliation from some of these power influencers in the great sport of soccer is real. It's was truly sad to watch and even worse, watch dads on here go off one me and make fun of my 13 year old dd.

 

[Grace T.]

Under California law, non-compete and non-solicitation contracts are illegal. You cannot enter into an agreement to not solicit anothers' customers, or to not recruit another's employees. The policies underlying the rule are that such agreements restrain competition and prevent employees from earning their true worth.

If a private organization (such as a gaming league like CSL, ECNL, or Socal) has a rule prohibiting a club or coach from recruiting players, then the league has prohibited them from soliciting customers, because players are customers who pay money to be on a team. The players lose opportunities and the clubs lose money. The gaming league's rule is illegal under both B&P 16600 (covenants not to compete) and B&P 17200 (unfair business practices). A gaming league which enforces the illegal contractual provision is subject to treble damages.

Here, a gaming league kicked out a member club for violating a rule which was itself illegal. The league then told its remaining members that it is now permissible to recruit the former member's players. The banned club is going to lose players and teams in droves. Damages would be very easy to prove.

In my view, the league should take a step back, revise its tryout rules so that they comport with law, and enter into a settlement with its former member to bring it back into the league.

Correct me if I’m wrong please but didn’t calsup recently rule that outside of employment contracts a rule of reason standard applies to 16600? That would be an awfully hard standard to overcome. They’d have to show the business was so restrained that it outweighed the chaos of having perpetual tryouts, since the only thing the league is trying to do here is impose some stability for state cup instead of preventing players from outright transferring.

in any case the claim would be SoCal elite. Not the individual consumer because they are free to transfer assuming they lived up to their contractual commitment for the year. I don’t see the anticompetitive intent of SoCal here which is what it comes down to. It’s just trying to prevent chaos by windowing, not protect the monopoly of any one club.

 

[crush]

Not the individual consumer because they are free to transfer assuming they lived up to their contractual commitment for the year. I don’t see the anticompetitive intent of SoCal here which is what it comes down to. It’s just trying to prevent chaos by windowing, not protect the monopoly of any one club.

Free? No way. You pay the price when you want to leave, trust me. Not all clubs act like the Mafia but some sure do. "Come join our family" they say but when you try to leave the family, it's insane and makes the movie The Firm child's play. "College coaches don't like club hoppers and dads that ask too many questions about coach and his behavior with the ladies" and one of my favs, "Playing for the YNT is a pipe dream." Same dude puts big ad, advertising at the fields to tell every player, "Follow your dreams." I saw that and I about pissed my pants!

 

[Carlsbad7]

Yes. That is what I am saying. Players (really their parents) are the "customers." Under the current tryout rule, players are allowed to transfer to a new club or team. However, no club or coach is allowed to reach out to a player to inform them of the opportunity. This impairs the player from learning about all of his or her choices, which makes it more difficult to make an informed decision about whether to exercise the option to move to a new team. Denying a player a source of information may prevent the player from moving to a better opportunity.

To me these seem like the same type of anti-compete behaviour but 2 seperate groups that are being affected.

The first is clubs that get booted from a league for trying to acquire players.

The second is players/parents who get cut from a team for trying out at different clubs.

 

[crush]

To me these seem like the same type of anti-compete behaviour but 2 seperate groups that are being affected.

The first is clubs that get booted from a league for trying to acquire players.

The second is players/parents who get cut from a team for trying out at different clubs.

What about one top club buying the other top clubs top players? Is that within the rules?

 

[Grace T.]

To me these seem like the same type of anti-compete behaviour but 2 seperate groups that are being affected.

The first is clubs that get booted from a league for trying to acquire players.

The second is players/parents who get cut from a team for trying out at different clubs.

I don’t see it

the first doesn’t prohibit any club from recruiting any player. It just specifies the window where this can happen. The reason is to avoid chaos and avoid teams from disintegrating during state cup. That’s enough to survive a rule of reason

the second is an individual action by a club so there doesn’t appear to be an collusion, is hard to justify because the player already is looking to leave, and hard to say what damages would be. If you spend all your times interviewing for a job your boss absent a special law or union rule id free to fire you

 

[Grace T.]

To me these seem like the same type of anti-compete behaviour but 2 seperate groups that are being affected.

The first is clubs that get booted from a league for trying to acquire players.

The second is players/parents who get cut from a team for trying out at different clubs.

I don’t see it

the first doesn’t prohibit any club from recruiting any player. It just specifies the window where this can happen. The reason is to avoid chaos and avoid teams from disintegrating during state cup. That’s enough to survive a rule of reason

the second is an individual action by a club so there doesn’t appear to be an collusion, is hard to justify because the player already is looking to leave, and hard to say what damages would be. If you spend all your times interviewing for a job your boss absent a special law or union rule id free to fire you

 

[Grace T.]

The Ixchel v. Biogen case you reference is really interesting. I read it for the first time today. Basically:

• You cannot prevent an employee from competing against you after the employee is terminated from his or her employment. That is the per se rule.
• Other agreements which restrain trade may or may not violate B&P 16600, based on the “Rule of Reason.”
• The Rule of Reason is applied from the consumer’s point of view. It says: Contracts with the purpose and effect of promoting trade and competition are valid even if their terms incidentally restrain commercial freedom in some way.

So the question becomes: Are a gaming league’s rules which prohibit a club or coach from contacting and recruiting players created with both the purpose and effect of promoting trade and competition? [Note: "competition" means competition in the market; not on the field.]

Put that way, the answer is “no.” Here, the gaming league’s tryout rule is designed to, and has the effect of, preventing clubs and coaches from offering services to consumers (players and their families). The tryout rule is intended to protect a club from losing its customers. It is not intended to protect the consumer. It therefore therefore fails the Rule of Reason test.

That’s not the intent. They’ll lose their customers after the season ends. The rule is in place to protect the players and league (not the club) from teams disintegrating before or during state cup. It’s a window not a prohibition and doesn’t restrict the transfer but the advertising and carrying out of try outs. Don’t see how you could possibly argue this is to protect clubs from losing customers since they’ll still lose anyone who wants to go. Further it isn’t anticompetitive because it doesn’t benefit any one club…it restricts all of them.

 

[Brav520]

Under California law, non-compete and non-solicitation contracts are illegal. You cannot enter into an agreement to not solicit anothers' customers, or to not recruit another's employees. The policies underlying the rule are that such agreements restrain competition and prevent employees from earning their true worth.

If a private organization (such as a gaming league like CSL, ECNL, or Socal) has a rule prohibiting a club or coach from recruiting players, then the league has prohibited them from soliciting customers, because players are customers who pay money to be on a team. The players lose opportunities and the clubs lose money. The gaming league's rule is illegal under both B&P 16600 (covenants not to compete) and B&P 17200 (unfair business practices). A gaming league which enforces the illegal contractual provision is subject to treble damages.

Here, a gaming league kicked out a member club for violating a rule which was itself illegal. The league then told its remaining members that it is now permissible to recruit the former member's players. The banned club is going to lose players and teams in droves. Damages would be very easy to prove.

In my view, the league should take a step back, revise its tryout rules so that they comport with law, and enter into a settlement with its former member to bring it back into the league.

now this is an informative post!

 

[Grace T.]

I disagree. If a club is worried about a team "disintegrating," then that is because the players and/or parents believe that it is not worth staying with the club. If they want to leave, then they should be allowed to do so. Forcing players to stay through State Cup is not intended to protect those players; it is intended to protect the club. Nobody should be required to stay on an ailing team.

you know just because something “should” exist doesn’t make it the law

the rule of reason here is purely concerned with anticompetitive behavior. There is none because all clubs are prohibited from the behavior and any club can find itself in the position of wanting to do a tryout but being restricted. The rule doesn’t advantage any one club because any of them can find themselves in a situation of having a disintegrating team during state cup. It’s not like this is, for example, a rule that benefits only surf or tfa.

the argument that it’s pro consumer is simple: if everyone is heading for the door during state cup, any kid can find themselves suddenly without a team to play. It doesn’t matter that the kid that wants a tryout now is forced to wait. SoCal only has to say it’s protecting the teams from disintegrating for the benefit of the kids who’d be left without a team. Theyll argue you need a window or kids will be perpetually shifting (and paying full fees for the move) because there is no dedicated try out period. The windows just bring some order to the process so kids aren’t preparing for state cup but also shopping around and playing with players trying out. They don’t stop anyone from leaving that wants to go

a rule of reason test is not a very high hurdle at all. I just don’t see it. Now if SoCal were to say a kid who leaves to play for calsouth will be penalized by being blackballed from SoCal, that would be anticompetitive.

 

[crush]

I disagree. If a club is worried about a team "disintegrating," then that is because the players and/or parents believe that it is not worth staying with the club. If they want to leave, then they should be allowed to do so. Forcing players to stay through State Cup is not intended to protect those players; it is intended to protect the club. Nobody should be required to stay on an ailing team.

The Firm rings true to my ears. I had dads tell me, "bro, don't be selfish. Finish what you started. Honor your word and commitment. What are you teaching your dd about leaving mid season." I know what they wanted and it wasn't my friendship that's for sure. Doc actually said if you leave, your dd chances are over pal." One coach told me after we signed that doing his privates takes your kid to the next level and not really the practices. Its the extra work at privates that takes you to Elite status. He lied later about other things and I told him it;s wrong to lie to kids and he went off on me like no one I have ever heard in this sport before or again. Guru thinks he the best in town. I feel bad for everyone who has to go through this every year. Clubs fighting each other, coaches leaving with whole teams (($50K)) in business gone, just like that. I saw it happen a few times. No real rules, only the ones they change to make it better for themselves. I said this 3 years ago. The parents need a seat at the table when the rules are being drawn up about being able to leave the family. This is so much like a cult.

 

[dad4]

you know just because something “should” exist doesn’t make it the law

the rule of reason here is purely concerned with anticompetitive behavior. There is none because all clubs are prohibited from the behavior and any club can find itself in the position of wanting to do a tryout but being restricted. The rule doesn’t advantage any one club because any of them can find themselves in a situation of having a disintegrating team during state cup. It’s not like this is, for example, a rule that benefits only surf or tfa.

the argument that it’s pro consumer is simple: if everyone is heading for the door during state cup, any kid can find themselves suddenly without a team to play. It doesn’t matter that the kid that wants a tryout now is forced to wait. SoCal only has to say it’s protecting the teams from disintegrating for the benefit of the kids who’d be left without a team. Theyll argue you need a window or kids will be perpetually shifting (and paying full fees for the move) because there is no dedicated try out period. The windows just bring some order to the process so kids aren’t preparing for state cup but also shopping around and playing with players trying out. They don’t stop anyone from leaving that wants to go

a rule of reason test is not a very high hurdle at all. I just don’t see it. Now if SoCal were to say a kid who leaves to play for calsouth will be penalized by being blackballed from SoCal, that would be anticompetitive.

The rules absolutely advantage the existing club over the new club. One club is allowed to sign contracts during the blackout period, and the other isn't even allowed to offer the player a tryout.

 

[Grace T.]

You and I can go around on this all day.

I think the rule is intended to prevent coaches from recruiting players, which prevents players from exploring better options. I think that is anti-competitive.

You think the rule is intended to prevent teams from disintegrating. I don't believe that players should be required to remain on a team that is at risk of disintegrating.

I don't know anybody at So Cal Elite, but I suspect they are exploring their legal options right now. Some judge is going to tell us what he or she thinks. That opinion will carry more weight than either of ours.

I haven’t done 16600 work but one of my specializations is competition law. Again I just don’t see it. Not even close. It doesn’t prevent players from looking for better options. It just windows tryouts. Otherwise no team anywhere could ever impose a transfer window on any player from pro to rec anywhere in California. And again a rule of reason analysis is a very low bar: they just have to have a reason that’s not pretextual

dad4 actually raised the most creative argument I think works: if it acts as a block on new entrants who can’t raise a new competitive team. Whether the rule acts as such a block on new clubs entering the market in order to benefit clubs inside the league is a question of fact, however, and in any case doesn’t benefit SoCal elite (Since it’s a club not a new team that has standing). Ive found the entire effect of SoCal having pushed out small clubs or making them absorbed by larger ones troubling in any case so it’s a small drop in a bigger bucket.

you might very well be right there would be a lawsuit. We don’t know for example what the affiliation contract says or what in fact were the straws that triggered this. But I can’t see 16600 going very far, at least not with what we have in front of us right now. The rule of reason is kinda game over for that one. And in any case, suing would be game over with the mls and will cause problems with the ea. if they do it and are unable to quickly settle, that’s the death knell for the club. it’s interesting, however, no one has seen a public response from the club yet? Anyone know what they are telling their parents?

 

[Grace T.]

I haven’t done 16600 work but one of my specializations is competition law. Again I just don’t see it. Not even close. It doesn’t prevent players from looking for better options. It just windows tryouts. Otherwise no team anywhere could ever impose a transfer window on any player from pro to rec anywhere in California. And again a rule of reason analysis is a very low bar: they just have to have a reason that’s not pretextual

dad4 actually raised the most creative argument I think works: if it acts as a block on new entrants who can’t raise a new competitive team. Whether the rule acts as such a block on new clubs entering the market in order to benefit clubs inside the league is a question of fact, however, and in any case doesn’t benefit SoCal elite (Since it’s a club not a new team that has standing). Ive found the entire effect of SoCal having pushed out small clubs or making them absorbed by larger ones troubling in any case so it’s a small drop in a bigger bucket.

you might very well be right there would be a lawsuit. We don’t know for example what the affiliation contract says or what in fact were the straws that triggered this. But I can’t see 16600 going very far, at least not with what we have in front of us right now. The rule of reason is kinda game over for that one. And in any case, suing would be game over with the mls and will cause problems with the ea. if they do it and are unable to quickly settle, that’s the death knell for the club. it’s interesting, however, no one has seen a public response from the club yet? Anyone know what they are telling their parents?

Here’s what a 17200 claim would look like for example. Disclaimer: this is all fan fiction as we don’t know the circumstances which led up to this. Hypothetically let’s say the SoCal board is controlled by several large clubs that the evidence shows have become annoyed at the success SoCal elite is having and got together to think of ways to derail SoCal elite from getting ea1 promotion or acceptance to the mls. While the mls has been schmoozed by SoCal elite, they are secretly doing the same but bad mouthing them. They hatch this scheme to force out SoCal elite even though they themselves have been caught and warned numerous times about their own try out violations. Their vote to kick out SoCal elite was motivated not by a blatant and repeated violation of the rules by SoCal elite (which hypothetically the other clubs are doing too) but by the desire to eliminate competition. Would be helpful if a direct competitor like golden state was a conspirator. Again all fan fiction and have no reason to suspect that’s true, but that’s what a 17200 would look like.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Would it be in violation of their policy if it isn't an official tryout but a kid showed up to the team to "try out individually" with the team?

You you can do that anytime.

But be aware if your current club finds out (they always do because parents talk) they might give you grief or they might even bench or drop your player or they might start being super nice to your player to try and keep them. It all depends...

 

[Carlsbad7]

You you can do that anytime.

But be aware if your current club finds out (they always do because parents talk) they might give you grief or they might even bench or drop your player or they might start being super nice to your player to try and keep them. It all depends...

Something we started doing was whenever a club your player is playing does a tryout we make an effort to try out at other clubs.

Clubs that make players tryout every year always say it's "their policy to hold tryouts on an annual basis".

If this same club gives you grief for trying out at other clubs just say that it's your policy to tryout at other clubs whenever the clubs we're playing for holds tryouts.

Dont let yourself be intimidated or bullied.

 

[crush]

Something we started doing was whenever a club your player is playing does a tryout we make an effort to try out at other clubs.

Clubs that make players tryout every year always say it's "their policy to hold tryouts on an annual basis".

If this same club gives you grief for trying out at other clubs just say that it's your policy to tryout at other clubs whenever the clubs we're playing for holds tryouts.

Dont let yourself be intimidated or bullied.

Love the honest approach Carlsbad. Best Doc I know once told me, "hey, go check out other dealerships and see what else is out there." His only rule for guesting with other teams was to let him know and make sure it's does not interfere with the teams games & practices. He was so good he was confident. I took his advice and checked out other dealerships. I was blown away how many were offering free cars and free travel......lol! I was honest with the worse Doc ever about looking at other dealership because the drive was hard and we were moving even farther and Doc went off and told me if we left now, it would ruin her chances at a deal. Intimidation? You better pay for extra privates or else? Bully?