Yup, the announcement was for 10:35am. Here it is:Saw a blurb on social media about a major announcement tonight. Any idea as to what it is?
There's going to be a lawsuit soon against ECNL. They're tieing Girls ECNL access with Boys ECNL which is illegal.
Here's an example...
Hulu can't refuse your money if you don't buy Disney+ and have Netflix.
The problem is someone needs to get frustrated enough to sue. There's just not enough desire to do this from a bunch of soccer people. This doesn't change the fact that what ECNL is doing is illegal. It's just that nobody cares enough to fight it.Highly unlikely. It's not a good example.
The problem is someone needs to get frustrated enough to sue. There's just not enough desire to do this from a bunch of soccer people. This doesn't change the fact that what ECNL is doing is illegal. It's just that nobody cares enough to fight it.
ENCL or any league for that matter can include or exclude based on some type of performance metric.You've described a very valid possible problem (not enough desire) but have also incorrectly stated what ECNL is doing is illegal. You can certainly believe whatever you want to - that doesn't change the fact that other people believe you are completely wrong. But yes - if a court were to rule that ECNL couldn't do what they are doing - that would certainly change perspectives, including mine.
So what about the teams/clubs that are even worse than Rising. Looking at the standings for their conference (which isn't a great conference, but that's reflected elsewhere in the ENL also), their teams are (in South)I'm not sure why they were caught off guard. ECNL clubs that have ECNL as their second team with MLS Next as their first have been strongly encouraged for 12+ months to pick one. If the ECNL teams are still dominating, an argument can be made that they are still good enough to remain - but that certainly wasn't the case here (and isn't the case in most of the clubs that had both MLS N and ECNL).
Rising owners (of the pro team) have plenty deep pockets, so it may depend on whether they get insulted by this or are bored. They have the wherewithal to sue (if there is a case), for sure, but I doubt they will.The problem is someone needs to get frustrated enough to sue. There's just not enough desire to do this from a bunch of soccer people. This doesn't change the fact that what ECNL is doing is illegal. It's just that nobody cares enough to fight it.
They aren't (based on the info in the screen shot) linking the boys and girls, just taking the boys. That said, if they are pointing to performance (player pool), then clubs that are worse than Rising should be chopped, as their player pools are also, by implication, not of the "standard" that ECNL boys apparently has ... I reckon there is a case that could be made.ENCL or any league for that matter can include or exclude based on some type of performance metric.
What you can't do is tie two seperate products together and make it so customers can't just buy one of the products. This is what's happening. As an example say a clubs girls ecnl program was was doing very well. That same club happens to have MLS Next and ECNL (which appears to be the case here). ECNL can pull either boys or girls from the club if there's a definable metric that shows that the relationship isn't working out.. What ECNL can't do is pull both girls and boys ECNL just because a club has MLS Next.
I understand that ECNL doesn't want their boys ECNL teams to play as second teams behind MLSN. But again they can't pull ECNL boys access just because a club also has MLSN. If the clubs ECNL teams were terrible in league and ECNL had a defined set of metrics for determining what terrible means then no problem booting them.
I realize that some of this sounds weird beacause this kind of thing seems like it happens all the time. However its not right.
Anyone can state that what ECNL is doing by trying to prohibit teams from having MLSN and ECNL Boys team is immoral, wrong, shortsighted, bad practice, unfair, or any other adjective of dislike they choose to use. Maybe some - or even many - people agree with them.
Anyone calling what they are doing illegal has no idea what illegal means. Everything is legal until a law states that it's illegal. Laws don't mean much, unless the defined illegal acts within have consequences, whether financial or other.
In this case - you believe that if someone were to sue, based on the above logic, a court would find that they are in fact breaking the law, and either award damages or force changed behavior. I think your prediction is very optimistic, and not very likely.
So what about the teams/clubs that are even worse than Rising.
Tying (commerce) - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
You need to keep in mind that people can sue for anything they want. It doesn't mean they'll win or lose even if the law specifically states x+y=z.![]()
Definition of ILLEGAL
not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
They seem to be competitive in their conference and in showcases, obv. not every age group. If ECNL are cherry picking clubs to drop, then they could have a (legal) problem if someone were inclined. The quality of teams & clubs in any age group and any "elite" league varies enormously from the top performers to the bottom performers, in both conferences and the ECNL in general. So if ECNL are hanging their hat on "competitiveness", that would be transparently wrong.Do they have both MLS N teams and ECNL teams, or is it just that their top team is both ECNL and not very good? I don't think Rising (and De Anza, and the others) are forced out because their ECNL teams are noticeably bad compared to their peers - I think there wasn't a legitimate argument to keep them in, if they were not particular good teams. If they were dominating their ECNL bracket, it would be more questionable about the board removing them - especially if part of it was due to competitive reasons.