|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Video Plus Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities 
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
MLS scores a victory Jury finds for league in players' antitrust lawsuit
Updated: Monday December 11, 2000 7:28 PM
BOSTON (AP) -- Major League Soccer earned a victory over its players on Monday when a jury decided that the league was not a monopoly with the power to depress player salaries. The class-action antitrust lawsuit filed in federal court had claimed that MLS owners conspired with the U.S. Soccer Federation to eliminate competition for Division I soccer players. But after about a day of deliberation, the jury found that plenty of competition existed -- in Europe, in Latin America, and in minor and indoor leagues in the United States. "We couldn't have told the players, 'Take it or leave it,' because they had other places to go," said Michael Cardozo, an attorney for MLS. The players will appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, attorney Jeffrey Kessler said. Jurors told The Associated Press that they were impressed by the testimony of former deputy commissioner Sunil Gulati, who compiled a chart noting that MLS players had come from and gone to professional leagues in dozens of other countries. But the players argued that only 20 percent of MLS players had international options. Others were turned away because of visa and work permit requirements or other limits on the use of foreign players. "All we want is an agreement between labor and management," said Garth Lagerwey, the Miami Fusion goalkeeper and player representative. "All that's happened in the history of this league is the league telling us what we had to accept." Because the jury sided with the owners that the market was not limited to Division I soccer in this country, it did not have to answer any of the other questions posed by the lawsuit. MLS commissioner Don Garber said the league spent more than $10 million fighting the lawsuit -- money that could have been better spent promoting soccer. Players were supported in part by the NFL Players Association. "We do believe that our players were misled by their representatives in pursuing something that was not in the best interests of the sport," Garber said. "We also believe that the resources will be much better allocated to growing the sport of soccer in this country." At the heart of the players' case was the claim that, if not for the exclusion of other Division I leagues, there could be a thriving marketplace for soccer leagues and players in this country. However, the jury appeared ready to agree with the owners that two top-flight leagues would over-saturate the limited American interest in the sport. "It was our feeling that if these two leagues had been in place, both would be bankrupt," juror Tina Hart told the AP. "There isn't enough demand for it." MLS owners claimed that they have lost $250 million since 1995, even without competition. In accordance with antitrust law, any damages awarded by a jury in the case would have been tripled -- and then applied to other players in the class, which could have put the cost to the league into the tens of millions of dollars. The case had been closely watched at the start when players claimed that the "single-entity" structure of the league -- a centralized ownership mimicked by every new sports league formed since MLS -- was itself an antitrust violation. That claim was thrown out before trial. Kessler said it would be appealed, along with this jury's verdict. "We believe there was significant legal error in the way the question was presented to the jury," he said. "We would expect that the correct law will be applied by the 1st Circuit." But Monday's decision is a setback for the players in that case as well. The league has argued that the jury's definition of the market will apply to -- and undercut -- that case as well. Kessler disagreed. "It means nothing for the single-entity," he said. After the decision, Garber said the players' representatives were not acting in their best interests. "As we have consistently stated since this lawsuit was filed, MLS resources would have been better spent promoting soccer and paying our players," said Garber. "Rather than defending a lengthy and baseless case brought by the NFL Players Association and their attorneys." "We are very pleased that the jury saw that the case was without merit and very pleased with the verdict," said Michael A. Cardozo of Proskauer Rose LLP, the New York attorney who represented MLS in the litigation. "This is a great day for soccer," said MLS executive vice president Ivan Gazidis.
| ||||||||||||||||
