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.
SoCal Elite - exit stage left
- Thread starter Action Jackson
- Start date
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 until 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.
Last edited:
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)
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.
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.
Assuming the Rule of Reason applies, it is possible that some restrictions upon recruiting may be acceptable. But as you know, such restrictions must be narrowly tailored. You have consistently argued that the league need only find some non-pretextual reason to limit recruiting, but you have not addressed the tailoring issue. You seem to think that once that a non-pretextual reason is found, that the league can make any rules it wants without any tailoring at all. Do you seriously believe a blackout period of 10 months out of 12 is "narrowly tailored?"
Attacking the issue from a different angle, I believe the no-tryout rule improperly inhibits free commercial speech. Freedom of speech is not just what you are allowed to say; it also extends to what you are allowed to hear. I cannot think of a single case where a seller was not allowed to reach out to consumers to offer the sale of legal services. Consumers have a right to learn of services offered.
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..
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
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’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.