The U.S. Soccer Federation has "sued the women's national team players' union" after the union's attorney asserted that the current labor deal "is legally invalid," according to Jonathan Tannenwald of PHILLY.com. The dispute "may come down to language" in a memorandum of understanding written in '13 after the previous CBA expired. The MOU 'appears to state that everything from that CBA still stands unless explicitly changed." The CBA "had a no-strike/no-lockout provision, but the MOU does not." However, the MOU "does not have any explicit language stating that all terms of the CBA are carried over unless modified in the MOU." If the MOU is "held to be legally binding as the CBA, the players can't strike." If the MOU "is held to not be as legally binding as the CBA, the players can strike" (PHILLY.com, 2/3). In N.Y., Andrew Das reports U.S. Soccer in the court filing said that it “'reluctantly' brought the action against the union" after its Exec Dir, Richard Nichols, "threatened to repudiate the agreement and its no-strike clause in a negotiating session in New York." Nichols "rejected the accusation that he had raised the possibility of a labor action." He said, “We have an honest disagreement about whether there is a valid CBA. We’re just trying to get some clarity.” Das noted the lawsuit "puts U.S. Soccer and its players in an uncomfortable adversarial position in what was expected to be a celebratory year" (N.Y. TIMES, 2/4). Nichols said that there was "no chance there would be a work stoppage during the Olympic qualifying tournament, which starts for the U.S. this Wednesday" (SI.com, 2/3). The WALL STREET JOURNAL's Matthew Futterman notes the litigation "caught the women’s team off-guard" (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 2/4).
