SoCal Elite - exit stage left

[Grace T.]

I have litigated a small handful of 16600 cases over the years, but not in the last few. The Rule of Reason never arose in those cases. For purposes of argument, let us assume that some kind of a no-tryout window is allowed under the Rule of Reason. Still, the no-tryout rule would need to be tailored. The no-tryout rule that exists right now is not, in my opinion, and is therefore invalid.

• The no-recruiting period is too long. For players of high school age, the recruiting window is only open for 2-1/4 months out of the year. For 2009-2013, the window is only open for 4-1/2 months of the year. As you (GraceT) suggest, this is so teams don't disintegrate pending the completion of State Cup. Is that a valid reason for such an extended black-out period? State Cup is scheduled months after the Fall season ends. For players of High School age, it is scheduled 5 months after their last Fall season game. For most others, it is about 3 months after their last league game. Is it really fair or reasonable to prohibit recruiting for such a lengthy period when no league games are played whatsoever?
• The no-transfer rules prevent players from obtaining information about their options. No coach or club can reach out to recruit, even if a proposed transfer would not take place after State Cup. As you know, many soccer families are so ignorant of the soccer landscape that they cannot even tell you what league or bracket they are in, much less what all of their team-movement options are. The no-tryout rule allows the Club to be the gatekeeper for most of the information parents receive.
• In the meantime, the player's existing club can provide information to its players and offer new contracts any time it wants, and no other club has a right to offer a better deal to the player. To me, this aspect of the rule is anti-competitive in the extreme.

I like the too short of a window argument. That’s a good one but it still doesn’t get you there (again they just need to show it’s not pretextual to cover up anticompetitive behavior). But It’s not anti competitive because it doesn’t favor any one club at the expense of the others. They all suffer from it. The only way to show that is under dad4 s theory about new clubs but that doesn’t help SoCal elite (or for that matter any fully formed clubs transferring from calsouth…would need to be a brand new one that can show this harms consumers by being a barrier to new entrants into the market)

 

[Grace T.]

You are looking at the rule from the perspective of the league and the club. The Rule of Reason requires you to look at it from the perspective of the consumer. I think the player is the consumer, and that the no-tryout policy is designed to prevent players from receiving information from other clubs or teams which might inform a player as to whether he or she should sign a contract with its existing club, or move to another club.

How do you address the issue that, during the black-out period, a club may market to its own players and sign contracts with them, but no other club has a right to reach out to the players to offer their competing services?

a. The consumer test is a market test. Here there is no increase in the price or narrowing of choices in the market because all the clubs are in the same boat. I just don’t see the economic impact to the overall market.
b. Even though the test is market driven SoCal elite would have to show the contractual clause disadvantaged it. I don’t see how you do that. The tryout Reg is an undertaking that runs to the club not the player since the player is free to transfer upon fulfilling the contractual commitments. Again the key word is “anticompetitive” as in competing against each other…hard to see except for dad4 s theory how any one has any sort of advantage with this rule.
c. If your argument is that the clubs are pressuring families to resign (and giving them deadlines) prior to the tryout windows and letting their spots go once the tryout window hits, I think youve made the rough outlines of some kind of consumer claim (not my balliwick) but that’s not SoCal elites claim but the players and it would be really hard to prove any sort of damages.

 

[TeamDadJokes]

Rumor has it a DOC / owner of a major club in the IE was upset that after they let the DOC of one of their branches go said ex DOC took the teams and staff teams with them to SoCal Elite with them and complained to SoCal league about it which was the catalyst for removal. Again, this is rumor / hearsay… I don’t know which club it was, just heard this from the local chatter..

 

[Grace T.]

To me, it doesn't matter if "all clubs are in the same boat." The very nature of an agreement to not compete is that the parties intentionally put themselves in the "same boat" to protect their customer base. It doesn't matter if the "market is the same" for all of the clubs who are part of the covenant not to compete. It is illegal because the consumer, meaning the player, is harmed. When clubs don't compete for customers, prices go up and consumers have fewer options. Pertinent to the no-tryout rule, consumers do not receive all of the information which might inform their decision to transfer or not.

That’s not how a competition analysis is done. It’s just not. And in any case there is an argument that it’s pro consumer by preventing some kids from being left out without a team. To survive a rule of reason it has to be pretty much a slam dunk and it’s just not there.

I said the narrowly tailored argument is a good one but again I don’t think you get there with that. Given it’s year round soccer of course the tryout Window would be small. If it were fall only it would be different. And again there’s just no intent there by any group of clubs to engage in market dominance….they are all leveled by the samerule.

the free expression thing is a consumer argument which might be a more fruitful avenu

 

[Frank]

i have not heard anyone defend Mr Oh. Would like to hear and alternate view.

 

[crush]

now this is an informative post!

I heard about a dad getting a job + free ride for dd if he brought over his dd goals. Really great player. Also, skip as many practices as you want but just bring those goals to the game so we can win and I won't fire you for under performing.

 

[dad4]

I like the too short of a window argument. That’s a good one but it still doesn’t get you there (again they just need to show it’s not pretextual to cover up anticompetitive behavior). But It’s not anti competitive because it doesn’t favor any one club at the expense of the others. They all suffer from it. The only way to show that is under dad4 s theory about new clubs but that doesn’t help SoCal elite (or for that matter any fully formed clubs transferring from calsouth…would need to be a brand new one that can show this harms consumers by being a barrier to new entrants into the market)

Dad4’s argument was about the difference in treatment between the consumer’s existing club and a club which is new to the consumer.

It is possible that one of these is a “new club”, but not required. Even if the only two clubs are Surf and Slammers, an agreement to not solicit each other’s players would count as anti-competitive.

 

[Maximus09]

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?

It was posted on the club's youtube

 

[Maximus09]

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.

Your fiction is probably the most factual comment in this thread.

 

[crush]

Dad4’s argument was about the difference in treatment between the consumer’s existing club and a club which is new to the consumer.

It is possible that one of these is a “new club”, but not required. Even if the only two clubs are Surf and Slammers, an agreement to not solicit each other’s players would count as anti-competitive.

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.

 

[Grace T.]

Dad4’s argument was about the difference in treatment between the consumer’s existing club and a club which is new to the consumer.

It is possible that one of these is a “new club”, but not required. Even if the only two clubs are Surf and Slammers, an agreement to not solicit each other’s players would count as anti-competitive.

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.

 

[Grace T.]

It was posted on the club's youtube

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.

 

[Maximus09]

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?

 

[TopesWin]

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.

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.

 

[crush]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Grace T.]

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.

This is a really good point. I don't know how that rule is even enforceable.

 

[espola]

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.

Do the parents sign a contract with that constraint?

 

[socalkdg]

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.

Other players are the best recruiters.

 

[Grace T.]

Do the parents sign a contract with that constraint?

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.

 

[dreamz]

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?