It's been a while since this topic has been in the news, but there was a new filing this week: http://sbisoccer.com/2016/11/mlspu-files-for-dismissal-of-youth-club-lawsuit
Just realized the plaintiffs filed in the Eastern District of Texas. LOL. Why the hell did they file there? Do they think this is a patent troll case?
The Dallas Texans, Dempsey's youth club, is headquartered in Plano, TX. Oddly, Plano is in the Eastern District of Texas even though it is north of Dallas which is in the Northern District of Texas. The courts that hear most of the patent cases are in the divisions over closer to Arkansas and Louisiana.
Still seems like a strange place to sue. And now they are getting owned on personal jurisdiction because of it.
They haven't gotten "owned" on anything, yet. The MLSPU just filed a motion; the court hasn't ruled on it yet. I suspect that the court will not grant them the dismissal because the Texans are in the court's district. I am not sure why the MLSPU thinks Massachusetts would be a more appropriate place as (AFAIK) none of the parties have any ties to it (the MLSPU is run from Maryland).
This is weak sauce analysis. Personal jurisdiction is about the contacts the defendants have with the forum state, related to the allegations at issue. Location of the plaintiff is not relevant. This motion will certainly be granted as to Yedlin, and most likely Dempsey as well. His failure to pay the Texans did not occur in Texas. He was in NE at the time of transfer.
No, the plaintiff absolutely cannot. Any Court in the United States must have jurisdiction over the person, or valid personal jurisdiction authority. The Court has no jurisdiction over lawsuits where (1) the defendant is not a resident of that state; or (2) the events concerning the lawsuit did not arise in that state. This means that if I live in California, and I get in a car accident in California with a Texas resident, the Texas resident cannot sue me in Texas, because I'm not a Texas resident and the accident did not take place in Texas. It would be fundamentally unfair to be sued in some distant, far flung place. This is a very basic constitutional due process requirement, and is something you learn about on the first day of law school.
Can you explain to me how Dan Borislow convinced a Florida court to keep his suit against WPS in Florida, even though WPS had operating documents that expressly said otherwise? I've always wondered that.
I believe that was because he had been a New England Revolution player at the time the suit was filed.
Not sure--I would have to look into the facts. Typically, a forum selection clause is binding, but in certain circumstances, it can be avoided. For example, if the chosen state has no rational relationship to the suit, but rather appears to be a completely random & arbitrary choice.
Back in the news: http://www.espnfc.com/blog/fifa/243...solidarity-payments-case-added-to-fifa-docket According to Lance Reich, who is representing Crossfire Premier in the dispute, the Yedlin case has now been put on the DRC's docket, with a decision expected to be made in the next few months. The next step is for the DRC to assign three judges to hear the case. The case has been dragging on since the summer of 2015 when the complaint was first filed with FIFA. Reich said he's hopeful that the case will be adjudicated very soon. "We look forward to a decision promptly from the DRC," he said.
Yawn. Forgot about this. Soccer here right now is like the gold rush was out west. Few wanted to go, but once there was some money to made.....sheesh. Silva, Cosmos, youth clubs....gimme, gimme, gimme.
There is also the fact that most / all the clubs have no senior team. The kids have to move on from the youth club. It will be interesting to see what happens with USL/NASL clubs that have academies and what they seek for compensation. There was an interesting article from the telegraph a few months ago, where compensation fees left kids in limbo and forced them to amateur clubs where there was no compensation required. EDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...eft-scrapheap-thanks-exorbitant-compensation/
I wonder if the youth clubs will have to start paying their "stars" such as Yedlin for using their name in promoting themselves. Every time the club says, "We've produced stars such as DeAndre Yedlin, Clint Dempsey, etc ..." the club has to send them a check.
http://www.espnfc.com/club/toronto-...nd-but-mls-still-has-player-development-issue TFC provided payment to youth clubs, with CSA no issues with it. MLS/USSF implications is as yet unknown. Probably nothing because it's within CSA jurisdiction.
An update: https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...nsation-from-pros-to-us-youth-clubs-on-t.html In particular, we were discussing a “USSF youth discovery program” that would be similar to training compensation for men and women’s first signing to the national teams. At the signing to the teams, the youth clubs for the player from age 12 to 23 (before that player signed a first pro contract) would get a one-time payment of a scholarship donation that could only be used for scholarships or other soccer-related items, with a set fee for each year the male or female player was at the youth club. We didn’t agree on a specific amount, but used as an example $2,500 per year the player was with the club. And that fee would double with the next player (male or female) who signs to the national team. This would reward clubs who consistently send players to the national teams. For example, Yedlin signing with the national team would cause a one-time donation of $7,500 to Crossfire, for example, three years. The next player Crossfire has who signs would cause $5,000 per year for that player’s years at the club. The system could start with the signings to main national teams, and then be expanded if successful to U-23 on down.
I'd be cool with that IF the youth clubs don't charge that players family a dime for playing in their youth teams.
Yes. Solidarity payments only for 'scholarship' players who participate for a set minimum time sounds fine to me. Payments for children who have already paid to participate do not.
If you ever want to get to free to play, there has to be a transition from pay to play where teams are getting compensation for kids whose parents paid.. While it sucks for that kid’s parents, it should result in current kids not havijg to pay...
I think the sensitivity of the pay-to-play is why the solutions have tended to focus on scholarships for future players, in a bit of a "pay-it-forward" manner.
I would imagine they are waiting to see if there is negotiated agreement, which, based on the above link, it seems like there is...