In a "major victory" for MLS, an 11-member jury
unanimously decided yesterday that the six-year old league
was not a monopoly, according to Michael Lewis of the N.Y.
DAILY NEWS, who notes that the verdict came after a 12-week
trial. A class-action antitrust lawsuit, filed by MLS
players in Boston federal court in '97, claimed that league
owners "conspired" with the USSF to "eliminate competition
for Division I soccer players and challenged the league's
single-entity structure." After one day of deliberation,
the jury found that competition existed in Europe and South
America and in domestic minor and indoor leagues. Players
attorney Jeffrey Kessler said that the verdict will be
appealed to the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. To
date, the suit has cost MLS "in excess" of $10M (N.Y. DAILY
NEWS, 12/12). Also in N.Y., Richard Sandomir writes that
the jury "specifically found that the league operated
legally within a global market for players." MLS attorney
Michael Cardozo: "They found the market the M.L.S. competed
in for players was global, not just the United States." MLS
Commissioner Don Garber: "To argue that we're not competing
with teams overseas is ridiculous and patently untrue" (N.Y.
TIMES, 12/12). The AP's Jimmy Golen writes that the jury
found two "topflight leagues would oversaturate the limited
American interest in the sport." Juror Tina Hart, on the
verdict: "It was our feeling that if these two leagues had
been in place, both would be bankrupt" (AP, 12/11). In DC,
Eric Fisher calls the win "somewhat bittersweet for MLS," as
league attorneys said during the trial that the league has
"lost more than" $250M since it began in '96, "with no
immediate hope for breaking even while" its network TV
exposure decreases (WASHINGTON TIMES, 12/12). In L.A.,
Grahame Jones notes that the NFLPA had funded the players'
suit and helped represent them (L.A. TIMES, 12/12).
