Thread by @ProfBank

A thread to offer a few reactions to the Court Order on the dueling summary judgments on NASL's antitrust lawsuit against US Soccer and MLS over the Pro League Standards 1/

https://twitter.com/ProfBank/status/1801256530622533918

1. Court granted USSF/MLS's motion for summary judgment (i.e., removed from the case) on NASL's most far-reaching/radical claim

NASL's Count I claimed the PLS itself was anti-competitive and caused injury. Court agreed that NASL had effectively abandoned the claim 2/

If NASL had won Count I, USSF could have had to repeal or substantially revise the PLS, perhaps changing its oversight powers considerably. Without that count, the case is more of a common, fact-intensive, antitrust case rather than one that could reshape the law significantly 3/

Since what is left is a common, fact-intensive, antitrust case, the motions by both sides on Count II re the application of the PLS failed. This statement by the court summarizes why this is a dispute over material facts and therefore not suitable for summary judgment. 4/

II. The Daubert Motions on expert witnesses are the parts of the order that reveal more about the judge's view of the case
- calls NASL damages expert's omission of the NASL Agreement with Team Holdings (re its rights to a large portion of expansion fees) a "major oversight" 5/

- Excludes NASL testimony about damages to downstream markets (fans, sponsors, and broadcasters)
- Requires NASL expert to subtract actual value of expansion fees from expansion fees it would have received in a "but for" world in which it was sanctioned as a DI league in 2016 6/

Excludes USSF/MLS expert on corporate governance practices and restricts NASL experts from suggesting USSF violated corporate governance practices -effectively removing that issue from the case altogether 7/

Permits USSF/MLS expert to testify that fans knew of the connection between NASL and Traffic, but not to infer that the Traffic indictment caused NASL declines in attendance 8/

BUT, while the Daubert motions will govern expert testimony at trial, the judge's "view of the case" is suddenly less important b/c the court has assigned a new judge to the case for trial - the third judge to preside over this case 9/

Because of the new judge, not only is it unlikely that the case will be heard any earlier than September, it's possible that it could be delayed or at least the new judge will have to be brought up to speed on the fly 10/

In his last acts on the case, the old judge did rule on some motions to seal. A couple of notes of interest for those who are interested only because of the hope that the trial will bring agreements and documents to light 11/

- Denied NASL's motion to seal settlement agreement w/ Traffic
- Denied USSF's motion to seal SUM agreement, subject to redactions for financial info
- Grant USSF's motion to seal McKinsey Report re USSF Board, except for a few quotes
- Defers USL's motion re CEO testimony 12/

Bottom line on the NASL order/case
- Orders not surprising on long shot summary judgment motions
- NASL has an uphill battle after losing at preliminary injunction, but they've spent a ton of $ to develop what facts they could
- Armies of lawyers will be paid lots of $ 13/13