As readers of this forum know, soccer is controlled by three layers of governing bodies (national, continental and FIFA) that try to manage every level of the sport from top professionals to children. When there was a controversy over whether a girl in some little community rec league in Quebec could play with a hijab, FIFA made the decision in Switzerland. England's FA long mandated that none of its hundreds of member clubs could allow women to play on their fields. If an individual league tries to do its own thing, like the old NASL, it risks getting sanctioned by FIFA. American sports operate in a completely different manner. Any league is free to do its own thing. There is an official baseball rulebook used by the Major Leagues and all of the "official" minor leagues, but anyone can create his own baseball league if he wants and alter the game in any way he sees fit, with the free market to decide which version sells better. (Even within Major League Baseball, the National and American Leagues differ on the crucial rule of the designated hitter, a relic from when the NL and AL were actually separate organizations.) Any attempt by MLB to extend its dominion beyond itself by say, banning players from independent minor leagues, would probably be seen as an abuse of its antitrust exemption or an unfair trade practice. Other American sports leagues don't have antitrust exemptions at all. NBA and NHL players play by "international rules" in the Olympics, then go home and play by their own rules. Now I know that that ChampionsWorld company is challenging soccer's system in the US. My question is, how have FIFA and its continental and national equivalents been able to get away with it for so long? Even if FIFA's monopolization of soccer is a good thing for whatever reason (e.g., maintaining purist rules), don't other countries have antitrust laws?
Anyone who wants to can set up their own football league and play to whatever rules they want, too. They just won't be allowed to take part in any FIFA/local confederation/national FA events. Those minor leagues playing their own rules can't play competitive games against MLB teams either.
Let's say someone who likes losing money created a rival to MLS. I am not an expert on antitrust law who could tell you if a USSF decision to ban rival-league teams from the US Open Cup or its players from the national team would be against the law. However, the governing bodies' monopoly goes beyond just who it invites to tournaments. When the old NASL experimented with the rules of the game in the 1980s, FIFA threatened (from what I understand) to ban NASL players from international competition and/or kick the USSF out of FIFA. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that an attempt by an association in any field to impose its will on private businesses in that field (unless such power has been recognized by the government, as with a bar association regulating attorneys) through sanctions would be against the rules.
I don't see how this is hard to understand you want to create your own league and come up with your own rules or tweak rules all you want, you can do that. FIFA cannot prevent you from doing that. But after that don't expect to be sanctioned by FIFA to play in their tournaments or to have your league sanctioned by FIFA, unless you abide by the rules of Association Football that FIFA and IFAB represent and protect. FIFA threatened remove their sanction of' the NASL and the federation because they were creating their own rules, and even had the audacity to ask FIFA and the IFAB to change the rules of the game to fit the "american sport culture". Imagine the NBA asking FIBA to change their rules so they can play more like in the US. Even though NBA is in a better position of power vis-a-vis FIBA than NASL could ever dream of being vis-a-vis FIFA, I never heard of them demanding that.
Well imagine FIBA trying to tell the NBA that they had to play 40 minute games or get rid of the defensive 3-second violation? Or the IIHF telling the NHL that if the domestic league doesn't adopt the automatic icing rule and wider rinks, Canada and the US would be kicked out of the world championships? Wouldn't that be a closer analogy?
the NBA did do that (or the way they put it - they agreed to it). Notice that Euroleague is no longer playing with the trapezoid lanes. To be fair it's been more of a partnership in the rules changes. The NBA adopted the zone defense and the shorter 3 point line. If you want a good example of the power of FIFA, google up "ASL Soccer War" Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia: American Soccer League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia To answer the original question of how does FIFA get away with it? The only answer I've seen so far is that because they're based in Switzerland they can get away with more than some other companies can that are based in countries with stricter anti-trust laws. As to how the USSF can get away with it? I don't know.
More absurd is how they get away with the way they operate the World Cup. They host has to agree to rules regardless of it breaking the local country's working laws. I heard there is also something about them and their partners evading any taxes.
They get tax breaks, concessions, etc in return for their business all the time. They lobby governments for laws, and find loopholes.
Let's use the NBA as an example since it doesn't have an antitrust exemption like MLB. There are many minor basketball leagues in the U.S., often fly-by-night operations. It is true that the NBA does not play games against them. However, the NBA does not try to shut them down or interfere with their operations either. If it did, it would get sued in a second. You may remember that the USFL successfully sued the NFL in the 80s for monopolizing pro football. The reason the USFL only got a $3 judgement is that the jury found the USFL's monetary losses were its own fault. Theoretically, the USFL could have won more than $1 billion. Now let's say I have a soccer league or team and a governing body tries to interfere with my operation because it doesn't like how I do things. It tries to revoke my license or whatever. Why can't I sue the governing body for abusing its monopoly power?
the NBA may not care about the minor basketball leagues as a threat to the NBA it self, but I'm sure they are wrt the D League. I think the past summer proves that the NBA and NFL essentially have anti-trust exemptions as well. As for FIFA, they're at the point now where they control everything. No player would play in a league if it knew it would prevent them from playing "in network" for some other team. I don't know how the USSF gets away with it, but FIFA are based in Switzerland - where you pay to play.