http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704654004575518154070092996.html By MATTHEW FUTTERMAN The United States Soccer Federation has long held nearly monolithic power over both professional and amateur soccer in the United States. .But a recent ruling from a federal judge in Illinois has called that authority into question, putting a sizeable source of revenue for the Chicago-based federation in jeopardy.
The ruling is limited to their ability to collect fees for teams bringing over foreign teams for friendlies. So... it won't. Unless the lawyer's claim (mentioned out of the blue at the end) that he's going to somehow take down Gulati is true, in which case it will affect NASL somehow - not to mention MLS, and the USA's World Cup Bid.
The problem with editing the whole article is that the main part was cut out by the editor - although I do understand why a moderater did it. My Bad - sorry. Basically there are two major quotes of importance here..... 1) "Judge Leinenweber said those claims make little sense, since the Amateur Sports Act doesn't give this country's national sports governing bodies power over professional leagues and games. If it did, the judge reasoned, then USA Basketball, for instance, would have control over the NBA." "Doesn't give" is very important. It redifines how a league can form in this country. 2) "In addition, FIFA, soccer's Switzerland-based worldwide governing body, can't give USSF the power to violate U.S. antitrust laws" In sanctioning games, and by extension - leagues, the USSF is in violation of long established anit - trust laws. I don't claim to be a lawyer or understand the in and outs of this complex ruling and laws. However it does and will affect how leagues are formed and sactioned. It's going to be an interesting off season.
Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that nobody wants to form an unsanctioned league (which, btw, they already could). No, they're not. If they prevented you from playing unsanctioned games, that would violate anti-trust laws; the mere fact that you can't play soccer under the auspices of USSF and FIFA without agreeing to play by USSF's and FIFA's rules doesn't mean you can't do it at all. It changes how games are set up and sanctioned, at least international friendlies. Leagues will continue to either be sanctioned or not, however USSF wants to run that process, because there is nothing legally necessary about being sanctioned if you want to run one. That's for damn sure.
That isn't what "depose" means in this context. It is a legal term that just means he is going to interview him under oath. sheesh. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depose I've seen at least a handful of instances where people have misunderstood that word regarding this article.