News: USSF sued by Relevent Sports for denying Ecuadorian clubs permission to play match in Miami

Not saying it about this bunch because I've never heard of them but some of these groups are shady. Traffic did some of these type of games and can't remember the name of the old MetroStars GM's bunch but seems it was also shady. SUM could be shady too for all I know. So US Soccer could be keeping shady operators out or protecting their own shady operator. Good luck finding out.

 

Relevant is the old Metro's GM bunch. Yes, it's a money grab. Yes, USSF does not want to open the floodgates. Yes, USSF is protecting their own shady group. Yes, it sucks all around.

 

I'm shocked, shocked!, to see the Fed acting as a SUM puppet.

 

Does anyone remember what Traffic got in trouble over? Player signings or these types of games? Can't remember myself.

 

All of the above. Take your pick really......
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/sports/soccer/aaron-davidson-fifa-bribes-conspiracy.html

Not to mention they are/were a third party ownership group of players..............ask Gale Agbossoumonde about them............http://www.espn.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/5764564/anguish-gale-agbossoumonde

 

Relevant is the old Champions sport that started the ICC. Are we sure they are related to Traffic at all? I thought all the Traffic guys were banned by FIFA and USSF.

Except the USWNT lawsuit, the SUM/MLS/USSF relationship seems to be an easy way for parties to bring a lawsuit. Whatever you think of SUM, if the USSF wasn't so entangled, there would be no basis for this lawsuit or the NASL suit, and maybe some more I'm forgetting. As Cordeiro said when running, the whole set up creates the appearance of a conflict of interest if not an actual one.

 

I brought up Traffic as an example of a company the FED has every right not to work with. Is this another? Of course I have no idea but hopefully the fed vets these companies before allowing them to come here and charge money. I don't really see a problem with the SUM/MLS/USSF (and you can add the Mexican Fed too). They just have to be careful to treat certain parts differently than others. Like cable companies who also offer content. Need to treat the pipes part differently than the content parts and if you don't you can be sued and lose. The Fed needs to treat any other company offering content the same way they treat their own content and they will be fine as long as they can prove it. The way this worked before what many of you think is a horrible organization is we had to go to Salvadoran restaurants to watch qualifying games that were away games in C. America. Had to watch as teams were contracted in Florida. This has brought a lot of different content together as one package that delivers more together than separately. They just need to be on the up and up (apparently difficult for soccer organizations).

 

Politics at its finest ...

 

I think the SUM/MLS/USSF relationship is a backdoor subsidy arrangment that kept/keeps MLS afloat. It is an achilles heal that allows almost anyone to initiate a law suit now. It wasn't even an actual written contract until the NASL sued.

If the arrangement gives a $30-$60 million subsidy to the Men's First Division league, which pays many USMNT players; while the Fed is only subsidizing the USWNT and NWSL to the tune of $2 million, then it could be the USWNT lawsuit is a very serious threat and I'd expect USSF to quickly settle for quite a bit of money.

For example, Bradley is making $8 million per year from a league that is receiving $50 million (for argument's sake) per year while Alex Morgan is making $0.12 million from USSF and nothing from her league which gets no subsidy. This has been going on for over a decade.

The lawyers fees and settlements are draining USSF of money that could be used to promote soccer. But certainly are still an order of magnitude less than the implied subsidy USSF is giving MLS owners through the relationship.

 

I don't know the ins and outs of MLS / SUM but I would be shocked if there's no contract. Wasn't the old Miami owner forced out and bought out of SUM? As for Alex Morgan I don't know which league she plays in but the highest level woman's league in the US gets indirect subsidies by getting USSF to pay salaries and benefits to a lot of their best players. MLS doesn't get that as players only get payed if they're called up so they can't count on any regular salary from USSF and pursue teams that meet their salary demands even if it means moving overseas.

 

SUM as an organization has a charter and a structure and their employees have contracts. But the deal between SUM and USSF was unwritten until just before the recent Presidential election. From 2001 (or whenever it started) to 2017, there was nothing in writing detailing what the actual arrangement was.

Right, USSF pays the salary of 22 American players. They play for NWSL teams for free. That is about $2-$3 million that the USSF would spend anyway for these players whether there was a NWSL or not. But you can call it a subsidy.

What is more interesting is that Bradley (and most of the team in Couva) is paid by MLS. But MLS probably could not pay Bradley $8 million/year without the backdoor USSF subsidy. In reality, MLS would have gone out of business in 2003 and whatever replaced it would not be able to pay it. Right there, Bradley could be making more, through the backdoor, than the entire USWNT works for. And that is just one player. Even if the Men bring in 2X the revenue of the Women, if that is even relevant, than that is nothing compared to the 15-75X subsidy that USSF gives MLS they don't give NWSL.

I just thought of this when I posted. I could not understand the women's lawsuit. But if they can prove any of this it would get very messy for MLS and USSF. If there is even a chance, USSF will settle very quickly and seal the results. We will probably never know.

What probably makes this all a fantasy at his point is that SUM is not involved in the lawsuit. But they might be waiting for discovery and class status. I'm not a lawyer.

 

The two little wrinkles here are that you've made up that "subsidy" (besides which, such a relationship was never explored in any of the USWNT lawsuits), and failed to recognize the actual relationship. SUM/MLS/USSF and NWSL are all linked together at the hip, because SUM is marketing all of the USSF events, and USSF also manages the NWSL.

SUM is the MLS marketing arm, which on its face doesn't necessarily preclude it from marketing USSF events. In theory, USSF could go with anyone they want to promote/market their events, the only issue is the conflict of interest that comes when USSF members are also members of SUM.

But there's nothing inherently wrong with choosing SUM to market/promote over any other marketing firm.

A final issue comes from the fact that a portion of the valuation of MLS franchises comes from the value of their SUM portions (that's what the Franchise fees are for). Which means that MLS is tightly linked to the success of SUM. And if MLS is tightly linked to the success of SUM, it's almost guaranteed that the NWSL is as well, much like how the WNBA is tied to the NBA.

So, you can't destroy the SUM relationship between MLS/USSF without also dooming the NWSL.

 

This is always what makes me doubt that MLS only wants MLS players in the national team. By not making the men's WC they didn't have a SUM bonanza. I don't get how'd they would OK with that because the team that failed to make it was loaded with MLS players. Do they sell that to the public - hey come watch an MLS game and see the players that failed to qualify for the WC for the first time in decades? I suspect that their own monetary interests - greed if you like - compels them want the best team possible no matter where the players are from.

 

I didn't realize their were previous USWNT lawsuits. What were the outcomes?

The subsidy is the market value of USMNT and USWNT marketing rights versus the $30MM that SUM pays for them. Relevant pays USSF $20MM just for ICC games. Most knowledgeable people put the combined rights around $90-100MM.

SUM is simply the MLS owners and Garber. So, that $60-70 MM difference goes right in their pocket. That is why some in the league are happy to stay at 1.0. Run their club on the cheap, break even, and collect the SUM profits.

 

They settled the other lawsuits out of court.

You're once again making up numbers, and from the year-end USSF reports that I've seen, I'm not even sure where SUM's money is supposed to be flowing in. They split into Advertising and TV, ticket sales, jersey/merchandising, etc. Presumably, the Ads/TV section, which was ~40 million as of 2018, would include SUM marketing rights and revenue from TV/sponsors, like FS1 and Volkswagen. And where are the millions of ICC dollars from Relevant?

40MM total seems fairly small if you think SUM is paying 30MM for the rights to market games. I mean, you're throwing around giant numbers, numbers that I don't think exist. That would mean (for example) the 40 million from the Copa America is chump change compared to normal USSF in-flows of money, instead of the massive money-maker that it has always been characterized as.

Unless I'm not understanding the relationship correctly, USSF has the ability to sanction games in the USA, while SUM (through an agreement with USSF) holds the rights to market games in the USA. It essentially is operating as the marketing arm of the USSF. Why would SUM/MLS/USSF have this kind of "handshake agreement" to subsidize MLS and collude so that SUM never loses the USSF as a client, when USSF are perfectly willing to actually subsidize MLS/youth soccer initiatives and WUSA/WPS/NWSL? What else would they be spending money on?

PS I've been looking at the ICC. The 2019 edition has 11 US games in one Summer. I'd wager that many people will pay a lot of money to fill football stadiums to watch those games. So Relevant (assuming the relative numbers are right, and I don't think they are) is paying to host matches that are going to draw more fans than either the USMNT or USWNT. Over 2-3 months, so they make their money right away, instead of being beholden on results/tournaments/lack thereof.

 

HERE is a brief description of the issues and result of the 2016 federal wage discrimination lawsuit. Court decisions were involved.

 

That was an EEOC complaint, not a lawsuit in Federal Court. Forgot about them suing over their MOA extension. Probably forgot because that suit was a bit frivolous.

 

The $30MM comes from the Relevant court filing.

But leaving the numbers aside, do you agree that if you give someone something worth $1.00 for $0.30 that you have essentially given them $0.70?

We can argue about what it is worth, but I've never heard anyone claim SUM is paying market value. But, of course, nobody knew anything until the NASL lawsuit.

 

I'm not hung up on where the subsidy is. I'm hung up on why.

I'm saying, USSF has a vested interest in MLS. Why not sell the rights for $1.00, then give MLS $0.70?

People ask what the heck the USSF is doing with its money, right? Right now, it's paying the USWNT and propping up the NWSL. It's spending money to subsidize FIFA coaching license fees, train coaches, support local boys/girls soccer, support the Development Academies, create a National Training Center complex with Sporting KC, and so on... But according to you, the biggest chunk of that (the 70 million they're foregoing is half of USSF's budget) is them not selling their rights at market value so that MLS can stay afloat/be heavily subsidized? Yikes.

 

I would assume it is illegal for them to outright give the money. You can't have a non- profit that just gives money to a for profit entity. They pay USWNT players, but they are legally free to play anywhere. So, not a legally direct subsidy. Or like Wambach, not play club soccer at all.

So, behind the scenes the women know they have to play in NWSL to make the WC team. And they set up a way to give MLS owners money.

Remember, SUM was set up when corruption at FIFA was rampant and blatant. Why it isn't investigated by S.I. or the Athletic is a good question. But at the time it was pretty subtle, probably dreamed up by a econ professor or something.

 

Oh yes you can.

Corruption at FIFA has always been rampant and blatant. Still is today. SUM was set up years ago as a way to help MLS and USSF when both rights were damn near worthless. The idea they would be in control of two federation TV rights never crossed their mind at the time of inception. Those federation deals fell into their laps but it was not some evil plan it was closer to Mr Magoo. I'm not a SUM fan in any way but let's keep the facts straight.

 

That is the story they tell, for sure. I doubt there was a time when nobody wanted the rights.

Whatever it was created to address, it is now a vehicle to funnel USSF money to MLS. What is so hard about this?

The rights have never been publicly bid. It has been secret negotiations with only SUM. Remember, Gulati was the founder and director of SUM before he was President. Eventually, all the people in charge at USSF were also at SUM and deciding that all business would go to SUM in an unwritten and undisclosed deal. It is mafia-esque.

I find it strange that people defend this arrangement.

 

How old are you?

 

Old enough to watch the USMNT on TV in 1990.

There has always been interest in the national team. It had always done well on TV. The amount of soccer on TV has grown substantially since 1990. I just don't buy the mythology that nobody wanted it.

That is just the kind of thing you say afterwards when you give a no-bid contract to yourself.