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

I think perhaps we can all agree on this.

 

The USOC is mandated by Congress with overseeing Olympic sports. Soccer is one ot these and USSF is under the USOC, even though it might pre-date it. Neither the USOC nor USSF gets direct funding from the US Gov't, afaik. So, I have no idea if USSF has to treat Men and Women equally under Title IX. As a quasi-government empowered monopoly, maybe they have to.

Again, just trying to figure out how the Women are approaching this. I find it flimsy that they cherry picked attendance figures and are hoping for a sentimental ruling. The lawsuit is basically the same one Hope Solo filed solo (sorry). Someone must think there is something there, you usually don't file Federal lawsuits frivolously unless you have a lot of money to waste. Some of the women who play soccer for the USWNT are doing very well, but nowhere near that well.

 

I think you give too much credit.

A couple of points.

1. The USOC is not the overseer of USSF. They are separate organizations with separate goals. The USOC is a non-profit that ensures the entrance of US Olympic teams in competitions across a variety of sports.

USOC is actually less "mandated by Congress", and more "a non-profit allowed to use the Olympic branding in the USA". Many countries have governmental oversight of their NGB's (National Governing Bodies), often through a Ministry of Sport, but not the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Olympic_Committee

2. I'm not a lawyer, but I've always been under the impression that you're supposed to make your arguments and evidence clear at the beginning of trial. So, if the WNT were trying to argue that the USSF unfairly refused to subsidize them at the same rate as the MNT, through it's contract with SUM, then they'd have to at least float the idea in the initial filing, no? Then they could ask the Courts to allow them to see the SUM/USSF agreements in-depth.

3. You don't always win lawsuits. And filing one doesn't mean there's a secretly-amazing case hidden in there.

 

Proving that in court will not be easy.

Lawyers would have to show that with out the contract with SUM, USSF would be getting 30-60 million more if they sold their rights separately.

 

Would they not also have to show that the relationship between SUM/MLS/USSF is not worth whatever the value of the subsidy is?

Not to mention, let's say that the USSF could sell their rights to NextStep Marketing, which is a part of Qatar Sports Investments, for the most money. But would they? Should they be obligated to?

How do you force an entity to sign the "best" contract? USSF could just say "whatever we're getting in fees, we're glad that we're helping grow the game in the USA with SUM, who has a vested interest in sustaining professional soccer in the USA, unlike Relevant Sports, Traffic Sports, etc,". Or some such reasoning.

You've gotta snip the obvious conflicts of interest, and I hope that happens with or without the lawsuits, but that doesn't mean that anything necessarily changes...

 

I think they could call Stillitano and Silva to the stand... could be a real circus.

 

A circus that ultimately fails miserably, much like the NASL.

 

I'm late to the thread, so I'm addressing something back at the beginning.

While Charlie Stillitano is indeed one of its soccer guys, Relevent is actually Steve Ross, owner of the Miami Dolphins, and the stadium formally known as Joe Robbie Stadium, where they wanted to host the games. He probably is in the top 3 most wealthy NFL owners.

He is also The Related Companies, one of the largest developers in the world.

He can probably find the USSF's much touted surplus, between the cushions of his sofa.

He has enough money to both challenge US soccer, and to be an influencer on FIFA.

I would not be surprised at all if he either won the lawsuit, or hammer locked US soccer into doing what he wants.