SoCal Elite - exit stage left

[VanMan]

What about Sunday scrimmages at the park put on by a Doc of another competitive club? No tryout, just go play soccer games. Doc and side kick ref the games and everyone has fun. Phone calls if you made next years team go out when open season starts. The top coaches watch the the top players all season so they know who they want.

"Clubs and teams CAN NOT hold training sessions, clinics, kick-arounds, camps, festivals (whatever name you give it) for players OUTSIDE of your club AT ANY TIME prior to the publicized tryout dates. "

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... What gets enforced is a different matter.

With a broad draw like your describing, all it takes is one parent who's kid didn't get an offer to make a phone call to create a problem for the DOC and his/her club. Charge $20 per head and call it a clinic "that generates revenue for the club" and it's a different story altogether. Bearing that in mind is why I think someone in this situation that started this thread was oblivious or simply DGAF.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Best post in the history of this site.

Because you’ve been here for years.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Whisper on the street up here in Pomona is that David Oh and his SoCal Elite scattering of teams will be kicked out of SoCal Soccer League (SOCAL) for a variety of legitimate reasons. Good on SOCAL for having a backbone!

The club isn't a traditional club, but a collection of vagabond teams with pissed off coaches splitting from established clubs. Those close to youth soccer know about the way this guy operates, so this is not a huge surprise. Coast Soccer League next.

DO if I recall moved this club when Roy Lassiter was running it from OC/SD for similar issues I think.

 

[LASTMAN14]

It used to be fairly common for players to appear as guest players on another team at tournaments. Does that still happen? It's obvious that there will be some recruiting going on there.

Yes. Please. Look this up.

 

[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.

 

[toucan]

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.

 

[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!!!!

 

[toucan]

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

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.

 

[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

 

[toucan]

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.

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.

 

[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!