RedDevil24
SILVER
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.
SoCal Elite - exit stage left
- Thread starter Action Jackson
- Start date
This is a really good point. I don't know how that rule is even enforceable.
Do the parents sign a contract with that constraint?
Other players are the best recruiters.
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.
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?
Is the league wrong to remove the 1% and sacrifice the integrity of the 99% that complied with their own rule?
It sure looks like an agreement that club B won't solicit club A customers until after club A has had time to sign contracts.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.
Am I missing something?
It seems there is an agreement between the league and their customers (clubs) that standardize ‘open’ tryout windows… Similar to collegiate signing windows.
The customers of the clubs (parents/players) are open to solicit other clubs and sign with them at any time, so long as they fulfill any financial obligations to the club their leaving and/or get approval to transfer from the DOC.
To @dad4’s point. Club A can sign their players at any time and Club B can sign any player at any time, only if contact is initiated by the player/parent, not recruitment activities of Club B or related parties outside of the tryout window. (I don’t believe advertising tryout dates that comply with the tryout window are violations of this policy)
All other league players, CalSouth, ECNL/RL, E64, GA, MLS/EA, Non Affiliated Rec Programs, etc. are all open season all year long to SoCal clubs and that’s the bucket SoCal Elite now finds themselves in.
As n00b points out the players are free to leave as long as they’ve fulfilled their obligations.
the claim we were discussing here was from solcal elite. It’s hard to say SoCal elite has a competition claim because it’s in the same boat as all the other clubs. It hasn’t been disadvantaged relative to the other clubs.
but now you’ve suggested that the clubs will repressure their own members to sign instead of looking elsewhere before tryouts begin (btw that behavior you suggest might also be occurring at SoCal elite which would mean their hands are tainted too). That’s a consumer claim, however, not a competition claim brought in state antitrust, restraint of non compete (since it’s the club bound by the restraint), or unfair competition. The main way the consumer gets a remedy under those theories is if the state ag, doj or ftc bring a claim on behalf of the consumers after launching a lengthy and costly investigation (been through a ton of those in several different countries and states) Otherwise you are talking consumer protection actions against the clubs (not the league since they aren’t in privity of contract with the league). That’s not competition law and not in my wheelhouse so I can’t comment.
Btw the point you are referring to goes to the issue of “standing”. It would be hard for SoCal elite to make a claim on behalf of consumers particularly if it is doing the same behavior as the other clubs (pressuring parents to sign before tryouts). If not from the government the consumer would have to sue directly (California does allow limited claims for indirect buyers in various instances under the Cartwright act…not sure about the others) but theres quite a few hurdles to jump and getting together things like class actions are complicated. Again haven’t done anything on the consumer side of things, it’s complicated and outside my wheelhouse.
whatithink
GOLD
I'd assume that any club in SoCal that also has teams in the letter leagues can have tryouts for those letter teams outside any SoCal windows and can sign any SoCal player any time they want (to the letter leagues). The SoCal players in turn can dump a SoCal team and move to a letter team any time they want and ignore any of the existing transfer constraints up to and including being of good standing and/or getting DOC sign off
The premise that all clubs are in the same doesn't seem to be correct, to me, as a lot of those clubs have plenty of toes in other leagues and can have tryouts and recruit outside any SoCal windows for those leagues.
Each league has its own sacrosanct transfer policy, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are not the only show in town. Any player, it seems to me, can move between leagues, ignoring those policies (& club colluding or driving this) providing the registering entity (that the player is registered with) doesn't conflict - or even if it does!
I have a question for @Grace T. Let's say you learned from past experience not to pay in full and do monthly payments instead, to make sure coach honors his side of the agreement. Let's say this particular coach turns out to be a big fat liar, manipulator and just mean and did not honor his side of the deal and you want to pull your child midway. The question is: I guess I have unpaid bill and no league will take dead beat father for not paying his bills before he takes off, so the question is: what are my remedies?
Yeah which is why I wondered previously if one way clubs get around the rule is by advertising tryouts for the letter leagues and then sending kids down for SoCal that don’t make the cut (“next year they’ll move up for sure if they can prove themselves”). But in any case SoCal transfer rules do put a restraint on transfers to those teams which are also members of SoCal league…it does require the former club to be paid in full. But again that’s primarily a consumer complaint outside my wheelhouse not a claim SoCal elite (which has its own letter league and runs letter league tryouts) can bring.
ooff thats a complicated one way outside my wheel house. A lot depends on what the contract says, what the cancelation policy is, what the collection policy of the club is and what the coach did wrong. The answer is very different if say the coach sexually harassed your dd v the coach didn’t give my dd the playtime she deserved.
I hear ya and see your point that their can be extreme reasons why a player would want to look for greener pasture. Let's take "Play Time" for $500 Grace T. "I want to leave because no playtime, even though I paid to have my dd play." Sounds like sour grapes on the service, right? Let's dig a little. What if coach verbally promised play time and to be starter if you pay in full right now and sign (spots are filling up, I have only 2 spots left and I'm only taking 18), ((lied & actually took 20 for extra $$$$)) but later, after you pay in full, coach adds extra privates to the mix to secure and guarantee not only play time, but his recommendations to any U of your choosing, as long as it's not UCLA.
The law on oral contracts and when they can modify written contracts is complicated and very fact specific such as what does the written contract says. They spend an entire month on first year contracts on this point. You'd have to consult an individual attorney to review the specific situation and facts on a case by case basis.
There is an old saying, though, I'd share with you: "If it isn't in writing, it's not worth the paper it's written on."
Also bear in mind just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's "moral" or "ethical".
Socal league rule says a player is free to leave a club before July 1, club fee paid in full or not doesn't matter. You will be able to get your player card transfer to the new club.
aong cangkol
SILVER
Most payment plan (from 4 clubs that I have received offer from) is structured so you paid off annual fee in 6 months. Contract starts in March so if you pull your kid in September you have to fight for a refund from the club. Almost impossible I think. Maybe better luck calling the credit card for fraudulent charges.
But it's hard to pin them down on that. They've always had a rec program and it's not their job to check and make sure everyone that shows up isn't already on a club team.