The U.S. Soccer Federation filed for a Supreme Court review of a Second Circuit judgment involving the Fédération Internationale de Football Association's home territory policy, raising key questions about conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. U.S. Soccer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in a case involving an important antitrust law question, according to court documents.
"The obvious importance of this question underscores the need for certiorari. Associations are a routine feature of American economic life," U.S. Soccer said in court documents. "Participants in a wide variety of industries and professions, ranging from actors to banks to cardiologists and countless others, all regularly join associations. As long as this conflict continues, Section 1 claims against association members will face different threshold pleading standards depending on where a plaintiff brings suit."
The question centers around whether allegations that members of an association agreed to follow the association's rules are enough to constitute a conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, court documents reported. This issue was previously addressed by the Supreme Court in Visa Inc. v. Osborn, and the current case deepened the circuit conflict that prompted the Osborn decision.
In this case, the dispute involves a policy introduced by a branch of FIFA in 2018. This policy restricts the playing of official soccer league games to the league's home territory, court documents reported.
Respondent Relevent Sports LLC, sought to stage an official Spanish league game in the U.S. in violation of this policy. When their request was denied, Respondent sued U.S. Soccer, claiming FIFA's policy violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, according to court documents.
The district court initially dismissed the claim because it lacked plausible allegations U.S. Soccer agreed to the policy beyond its mere membership in FIFA. However, the Second Circuit overturned this decision, stating an allegation of members agreeing to be bound by an association's rules is sufficient to demonstrate concerted action in a case challenging the legality of the association's rule, court documents reported.
This ruling extended to both association members and non-members who are indirectly affected by the association's rules, according to the court documents.
U.S. Soccer argued the Second Circuit's decision goes against established precedent and deepens the existing circuit conflict on this issue. They assert the Second Circuit's rule could potentially implicate entities that belong to various membership associations, posing a threat to long-standing principles of antitrust law. U.S. Soccer seeks a review by the Supreme Court to address the conflict and provide clarity on this antitrust law question, court documents reported.
"This case provides an ideal vehicle to resolve this circuit conflict and establish a uniform pleading standard for claims of concerted action by association members," U.S. Soccer said in court documents.
