The MLS Players Union, along with Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey and DeAndre Yedlin, has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against them by three youth clubs.
The motion argues that the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas lacks "personal jurisdiction" over the MLSPU and the players named in the original lawsuit. The MLSPU also filed a separate motion that if the suit is not dismissed, the MLSPU requests a change of venue to Massachusetts.
The original class action lawsuit -- filed by Redmond, Washington's Crossfire Premier club, the Chicago Sockers and the Dallas Texans -- aims to settle the question of whether FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) are legal in the U.S., and whether the youth clubs in question can then recoup training fees for the players it developed who later become professionals.
At one point, Bradley played for the Chicago Sockers, Dempsey for the Dallas Texans, and Yedlin for Crossfire Premier.
RSTP stipulates that training compensation is charged when a player signs his or her first pro contract and there is a change of national association, while solidarity payments are collected when a player is transferred before the expiration of their contract, and there is a change of national association.
The U.S. Soccer Federation, citing U.S. law, has long forbidden U.S. youth clubs from collecting training compensation and solidarity fees, and MLS has followed that lead. Specifically, the concern is that implementing RSTP in the U.S. could result in a restraint of trade and thus violate U.S. anti-trust law.
Underpinning the USSF's position is a consent decree involving the USSF and MLS that came as a result of the lawsuit Fraser vs. MLS. The decree, a copy of which has been obtained by ESPN FC, stated that the "USSF will not impose, implement, or enforce in any way, those roles, statues, or regulations adopted by the Federation Internationale de Football Association relating to the payment of transfer fees or training and development fees ['transfer fee rules'] for professional soccer players who are free of contractual obligations to other teams ['out of contract players']."
The decree goes on to add: "USSF will not directly or indirectly prevent a player from playing in Major League Soccer [MLS] by failing to register an out of contract player in the United States because MLS has not complied with the transfer free rules with respect to out of contract players."
Nowhere in the consent decree does it mention what should happen in the case of players who are still under contract.
In a bid to collect the fees they feel are owed them, the three clubs have taken their case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber, and are awaiting a decision. Meanwhile, they are also moving to establish the system's legality in the U.S.
Lance Reich, the attorney representing the three youth clubs declined to comment, but in a previous interview he admitted that the lawsuit was a preemptive strike against the MLSPU, which in a meeting earlier this year threatened to sue the clubs on anti-trust grounds if a system of training compensation and solidarity payments was implemented.
The motion argues that the MLSPU has minimal contacts in Texas, doesn't have any offices there, and that its Collective Bargaining Agreement is with MLS and not any entity in Texas. For those reasons the motion argues, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas does not have jurisdiction in the case.
As for the players, the motion argues that they "lack sufficient contact with the state of Texas" for them to be under jurisdiction by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The reason that the MLSPU wants a change of venue to Massachusetts is that the Massachusetts District is where Fraser vs. MLS was tried, and the consent decree issued.
"The District Court for the District of Massachusetts is surely best qualified to determine the effect of the consent order issued by that court," the motion reads.