PlayersÆ side vows to fight on following the Boston federal court victory in antitrust suit

The lawsuit is over, but the acrimony between MLS and its players may continue.

Jeffrey Kessler, lead counsel for the players, says the Dec. 11 decision in favor of the league will be appealed. Goalkeeper Mark Dodd, one of the eight named plaintiffs on the lawsuit, says the ôstrong-arm tacticsö of MLS have to change.

Both sides insist the lawsuit could have been avoided through settlement proposals that were rejected by the opposition before the trial.

And there may be acrimony within the playersÆ ranks as well. Unknown to most of the players, the lawsuit included a separate claim for the eight plaintiffs that would have paid them $1.5 million in a separate judgment had their side won the case.

ôI think this is accepted in cases like this,ö said Dodd, who announced his retirement in October. ôWeÆre the ones sticking our necks out. But all the players would benefit if we won the case, not just us. And the obvious next step for us is to appeal.ö

Quakes defender Dan Calichman was stunned to learn of the separate claim for the eight plaintiffs.

ôThis is disturbing,ö he said. ôIf it is a normal part of a case like this, why werenÆt they forthright about it? I didnÆt know about it until this afternoon [Dec. 12].

ôIt looks like something is being hidden. You definitely ask questions about whoÆs benefiting and what decisions are being made in their own self-interest.ö

THE DECISION. An 11-person jury ù one juror was taken ill early in the trial and not replaced ù deliberated for less than a day before announcing its verdict.

Federal District Judge George OÆToole had presented a set of questions to guide the jurors in deciding if U.S. Soccer and MLS had formed a monopoly when the federation granted the league Division I sanction. MLS and U.S. Soccer were co-defendants in the lawsuit.

The first two questions directed the jurors to decide if a global market for soccer players existed and if rival American leagues could compete with the Division I league ù MLS ù for players.

Once the jurors decided both a global market existed and other domestic entities could compete with MLS for players, the playersÆ case collapsed. No further deliberations were necessary since the jurors had determined the monopoly alleged by the players did not exist.

ôThe reason is the single-entity claim was brought under what is called Section 1 of the Sherman [antitrust] Act ù a restraint of trade,ö said MLS legal counsel Michael Cardozo. ôYou have to show restraint of trade in a relevant market. If MLS is viewed as simply as a participant in the international market, for example, obviously MLS has a very, very small effect when you consider all the different players who participate around the world.ö

THE TESTIMONY. Some of the most effective testimony on behalf of the defendants came from Alan Rothenberg, Sunil Gulati and Hank des Bordes.

Cardozo cross-examined Rothenberg and Gulati, who had been called to the stand by the playersÆ lawyers.

A chart was displayed in court from which Gulati reeled off the names of more than 100 players who had played in foreign leagues as well as MLS. It apparently impressed the jury.

Des Bordes, a former U.S. Soccer executive vice president (1986-94), testified of his rivalry with Rothenberg, which punched holes in allegations that U.S. Soccer marched to RothenbergÆs command.

U.S. Soccer attorney Paul Robbins said, ôThey called Sunil, and Sunil explained that Alan had many people on the board who were not his friends.

ôWe called Hank des Bordes, who was the executive vice president in 1993 and in fact ran the [sanctioning] meeting. It came out he had not supported Alan in 1990 when he ran for president, that he ran the meeting in 1993 when Alan had to recuse himself, and that he ran against Alan and had other disagreements with him.ö

THE AFTERMATH. Kessler said his side will appeal not only the verdict, but OÆTooleÆs decision last April to throw out the single-entity aspect of the case.

In the original lawsuit, it was stated the single-entity structure of MLS violated antitrust laws. OÆToole rejected that claim.

Kessler said an appeal would be made in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court.

MLS executives said the league had paid more than $10 million in legal costs to defend itself, and has lost $250 million since it began operations.

ôWeÆll be refocusing on our business and IÆll get my staff back from Boston,ö said league commissioner Don Garber. ôClearly this is an enormous relief, and it allows us to do what weÆre supposed to do, which is grow this sport.ö

Dodd doesnÆt agree.

ôThe fact remains, itÆs a strong-arm league,ö said Dodd. ôItÆs about control and power, and the league doesnÆt want the players to have any. Regardless of the verdict, you still have a lot of players unhappy about the way theyÆre being treated.ö

Calichman says the players are willing to negotiate.

ôWhat most of the players care about is the minimum salary [$24,000], a pension plan, and some limited freedom within single-entity,ö he said. ôSomehow, all of that got lost. Now that this is over, itÆs time to sit down and bargain.ö

by Soccer America senior editor Ridge Mahoney