What the Relevent, U.S. Soccer, FIFA lawsuit could mean for soccer in the USA

A potentially seismic shift is taking place as it relates to the sport of soccer in the United States, though the tremors aren’t being felt on the field, but in the U.S. court system.

Relevent Sports, owned by Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross, has spent the past five years engaged in an antitrust lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation and FIFA, soccer’s ruling body. At issue is Relevent’s desire to hold official league matches from foreign leagues in the U.S., with the USSF using a FIFA policy to protect its territory and only allow exhibition matches to take place.

Relevent has already gotten FIFA to acquiesce by having FIFA agree to consider changing its rules — as it stands, the expectation is that FIFA will not stand in the way of such matches being held in the future. If Relevent then prevails against the USSF, what could ensue is a modern day “gold rush” in which foreign leagues try to make further inroads into the U.S. market. This could leave the country’s domestic leagues struggling to maintain market share against foreign leagues that offer an arguably higher level of play. It also calls into question just how much power governing bodies like the USSF and FIFA can wield, especially when pitted against U.S. law.

Clearly, Major League Soccer would feel the biggest impact. Would the league’s space in the North American sports landscape, one that it has carefully nurtured for 28 years, be diminished in such a climate?

“There are scores of people across this country who wake up at crazy early hours in the morning to watch, for example, the Premier League on the weekend,” said American University law professor N. Jeremi Duru, who specializes in sports law. “If you have these big European leagues playing meaningful non-exhibition league matches here in the United States, I think that’s going to sap some of the enthusiasm for MLS matches, divert some of the attention and some of the dollars that are going towards matches.”

So how did Relevent get to the point where it sued the USSF and FIFA?

In 2018, Relevent and Spain’s LaLiga began a joint venture to promote the league’s interests in North America. Included in the deal were plans to play a league match in the United States. Relevent requested that a La Liga match between Barcelona and Girona be held in Miami, but such matches have to be approved by the confederations involved — in this case, UEFA and Concacaf, the organizations that oversee European and North/Central American soccer respectively — as well as the corresponding national federations, the USSF and the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF).

The RFEF turned down the application. The idea also received pushback from the Spanish Footballer’s Association, and Barcelona eventually withdrew from the plan.

Then, in spring of 2019, Relevent attempted to host an Ecuadoran league match between Guayaquil City FC and Barcelona SC (no relation to the Spanish version) in Miami. (The lawsuit mentions this game, not the LaLiga one.) But the USSF has sole discretion to sanction international soccer matches in the U.S., and that power is derived from FIFA. FIFA grants such latitude in exchange for its member associations adhering to FIFA regulations, including some that apply to the club game. As such, the USSF denied the request because allowing the match would have violated a FIFA policy, crafted in 2018, that requires league matches to be held in their home territory.

Relevent sued on antitrust grounds in September 2019, with FIFA added as a defendant a year later. The suit alleged, in part, that the restriction was anti-competitive, and that the USSF conspired with FIFA to withhold its approval in a bid to give an advantage to Soccer United Marketing (SUM). SUM is the marketing arm of MLS and a competitor of Relevent’s in the area of promoting international soccer matches.

On the surface, Relevent’s case seems strong.

“The policy that FIFA adopted, that U.S. Soccer is citing in the Relevant case, is a policy that really doesn’t make a lot of sense from an antitrust law perspective,” said UCLA law professor Steven Bank, whose classes include one on International and Comparative Sports Law. “When we start thinking about soccer as a global multinational business, that’s like saying you can’t have a Chinese company operate in the U.S., and that gets to be problematic.”

Relevent is represented by well-known sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler of the law firm Winston & Strawn. Kessler has successfully litigated cases against the NCAA as well as negotiating a settlement for the U.S. women’s national team in its equal pay lawsuit against the USSF.

Don’t foreign teams play games in the U.S. all the time?

They do, and they have been for decades, with Relevent historically one of the major players in this space thanks to its running of the International Champions Cup. The ICC was last held in 2019, but summer tours by European and Liga MX clubs remain a staple of the U.S. soccer landscape. The list of teams decamping to the U.S. this summer for preseason play is now considerable, with at least six Premier League teams — including Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester City and Manchester United — coming stateside as part of their preparations for the 2024-25 campaign. LaLiga is getting in on the act as well, with giants Real Madrid and Barcelona meeting for a friendly at MetLife Stadium on Aug. 3.

However, those matches, at least up to now, have been exhibitions. Fans have turned out in droves despite the fact that star players don’t play a significant part: their minutes are severely restricted in order to ensure they’re ready for the regular season if they show up at all: Real Madrid confirmed Monday that their two marquee players, Kylian Mbappe and Jude Bellingham, would not be present on the U.S. tour.

Imagine then, what would happen then if an actual league game — or even a UEFA Champions League final, as was suggested earlier this year by UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin — were contested on U.S. soil.

Haven’t other U.S. sports leagues been doing this for years?

Indeed they have. The NFL has played games in Europe and Mexico in recent seasons, and it has announced it will play a game in Brazil for the first time later this year, along with games in London and Munich. NFL teams also voted to double the number of international games to eight starting in 2025, with Madrid already announced as a new market.

Major League Baseball has routinely opened its season with games in Asia, and continued that trend this year with games in South Korea. (Next year, the Chicago Cubs and Los Angeles Dodgers will open the regular season in Tokyo.) Meanwhile the NBA held games in Mexico City and Paris this season, and will do so again during the 2024-25 campaign.

So what’s the problem regarding soccer in the U.S., then?

In none of those countries is the American league looked upon as a threat to the business of the domestic league (if one even exists) and vice versa. Ticket sales in the KBO League, the top baseball league in South Korea, are not going to be cannibalized by the Dodgers and Padres playing a couple of games in Seoul. In fact, the argument is that those games help drive the growth of the sport in those countries. In the case of the NFL, there is often no equivalent at all.

The dynamic is different in the United States. MLS commissioner Don Garber has spoken openly about MLS becoming one of the top leagues in the world for over a decade, but there is concern that having league games from what would likely be multiple leagues being played on U.S. soil would undercut MLS’ business by revealing in stark terms just how far behind the rest of the world MLS is.

There is renewed interest in bringing meaningful games to U.S. audiences. Liverpool Chairman Tom Werner told the Financial Times last month that he is “determined one day to have a Premier League game be played in New York City,” even as the Liverpool FC Supporters Board released a statement stating that Werner’s suggestion was “a personal idea” and that such a proposal would “only be put forward for consideration if it was right for everyone, including and most importantly, supporters.”

Premier League Chief Executive Richard Masters is keeping his options open, stating at the European Leagues general assembly on 26th February: “The door looks ajar for matches abroad. It is not part of our current plans.”

Garber has been consistent in his opposition to the concept of league matches from overseas leagues being held in North America.

“I don’t think it’s the best thing for the sport,” Garber told ESPN back in 2020 about the U.S. hosting foreign league matches. “I think regular season games should be played in home markets, and that’s been supported by even in the one issue we have going on now in Spain. The Spanish Federation doesn’t think it makes sense.”

Garber, who sits on the USSF board of directors, added, “This isn’t really about what I think is good for our market because I have no role in that. I’m not trying to be cute. It’s whether I think that a fan in a local city should lose a home regular-season game. When you’re only playing X number of them, it is not, in my view, in the best interest of the respective leagues.”

Sources told ESPN that MLS’ line of thinking hasn’t changed. Earlier this year, Garber spoke to select media ahead of the 2024 MLS season and reiterated his stance. “This is a complicated issue and one that’s just been debated and ultimately continuing a process that FIFA is going through. Clearly, we all need to be very thoughtful about how our market develops so that everybody can be a winner … I do like order.”

“MLS is a very structured organization. We’re very focused on good governance, and I’m looking forward to seeing how it evolves over the next period of time.”

MLS declined to comment for this article, with the USSF also declining when asked.

Would MLS benefit at all from such games moving forward?

Both Duru and Kessler are of the opinion that any boost to the game in the U.S. would benefit MLS by drawing more attention to the sport. Allowing matches from the likes of the Premier League to go forward would also force MLS to open up its collective pocketbook to a much greater degree and improve the standard of play on the field. Depending on one’s perspective, MLS has either been very strategic or notoriously slow moving when it comes to investing in the on-field product. Allowing more competitive, higher quality leagues into the U.S. would certainly force MLS into some difficult decisions.

“They say, ‘Steel sharpens steel,'” Duru said. “And the steel when it comes to international soccer — the European leagues — is sharp. MLS is in the position where it can be sharpened by that and raise its own game as well.”

Kessler added, “I think allowing the competition will benefit U.S. fans in two ways. One, they’ll get to see some of the best teams in the world play official games, but two, it will have a competitive effect on MLS and cause it to spend more money on players, bring in more stars, improve their product, so you’ll have better competition all around.”

Looking at what happened in Japan might be instructive. MLB first started playing regular season matches in Japan in 2000, but in 2023, attendance at Japanese professional baseball games was 29,219 fans per game, roughly equivalent to MLB’s 2023 average of 29,283.

So where do things stand in the courts?

The lawsuit has been wending its way through the court system. In July of 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the anti-trust portion of the lawsuit stating that since there was no overt agreement between the USSF and FIFA, it couldn’t prove there was an effort to “restrict output.” But in May 2023, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reinstated the lawsuit.

In April, the Supreme Court allowed that decision to stand, with the Biden administration weighing in and supporting Relevent’s position in March. The lawsuit is now going forward in U.S. District Court.

Wasn’t a part of the suit settled recently?

Kinda, sorta. On April 8, Relevent agreed to remove FIFA as a defendant, and each party agreed to pay their own legal fees. Most importantly, FIFA agreed to a “consideration of changes to existing FIFA policies with respect to playing official season games outside of a league’s home territory.” But if Relevent doesn’t like the direction FIFA takes on the issue, it can sue FIFA again.

“We believe that process will bring the relief we are seeking,” Kessler said. “If it doesn’t, we have remedies, but we believe it will.”

To that end, FIFA announced May 15 that it was forming a 10-15 member working group that “will consider a revised legal framework at FIFA level dealing with i) rules, procedures and processes for authorising interclub football matches or competitions, and ii) criteria to be applied for authorising such matches or competitions.”

The USSF is still a defendant, and was asked by Judge Valerie Caproni if FIFA is still an “indispensable party” to the suit, since it was FIFA’s policy that the USSF was using as justification for its decision. The USSF said it can’t answer that question until it can see the details of the settlement. Relevent and FIFA said in a recent filing that they don’t want to release the details, which is standard when two sides settle litigation. But if the judge orders them to disclose, Relevent and FIFA have stated in court filings reviewed by ESPN that they want the agreement to be kept private among the USSF, FIFA and Relevent.

“We’re always interested in getting these games to the U.S. sooner rather than later,” said Kessler. “We would always be open to a settlement with the USSF, but that hasn’t happened. And if it doesn’t, we’re going to pursue these antitrust claims to their fullest extent.”

Two days after this interview, The Athletic reported that during what was supposed to be a status hearing on May 2, Relevent’s attorney’s made it clear they want the case to go on and plan to seek damages against the USSF.

Judge Valeri Caproni ultimately allowed FIFA to be removed as defendants, but the case is still ongoing. Judge Caproni later directed both sides to engage in settlement talks. “That’s usually a sign that neither side is going to get everything that they want” from the judge, Bank said.

The case has since been assigned to a different judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.

What league would likely move first?

If Relevent prevails, the path forward will be wide open, with leagues around the world theoretically free to cash in on an ever-growing market. But who would take the plunge? Given Relevent’s ongoing relationship with LaLiga, there’s a temptation to think a European league will strike first. La Liga president Javier Tebas certainly seems enthusiastic.

“I don’t know when, but this time LaLiga will play official games abroad,” Tebas told Expansión. “I think it could be from the 2025-26 season. An official game in the United States would strengthen our position in the North American market, which is the second [biggest] for LaLiga after Spain. Other really competitive leagues are coming, so we can’t always do the same thing. They would jump ahead of us.”

Such a decision could face some headwinds. A Premier League proposal back in 2008 that would have seen EPL games played at neutral venues outside the country was met with a negative reaction from fans and other stakeholders, though some were in favor. The fan culture in Germany, where the 50+1 rule gives supporters a strong say in such matters, would likely be met with fierce resistance. The failed attempt at the creation of the European Super League, which also involved a huge backlash from fans, would also point towards supporters based in the home territory not being in favor of allowing league games to happen overseas.

A more willing partner might be Mexico’s Liga MX. The number of Mexico expats in the U.S. currently exceeds 10 million, and given the success of matches played by the Mexico men’s national team in the U.S., playing such matches would almost certainly be a massive hit. Club América president Santiago Baños even told reporters in May, ahead of the Liga MX Clausura final, that his team was considering home games in the U.S. while their stadium, Estadio Azteca, underwent significant renovations in order to be ready for the 2026 World Cup.

“We’re not opposed to the possibility of playing in the United States as the home team, now that the lawsuit has been finalized and it appears that there’s a possibility for other teams to play there,” Baños said. “It would be incredible to play in the U.S. and in other [Mexican] states because we have so many fans.”

MLS and Liga MX have been forging closer ties in recent years, with the advent of the Leagues Cup just one example. Given that deepening relationship, it seems likely that a thoughtful approach will carry the day.

How might this affect the future of governing bodies? Would their authority be undercut?

In recent years, there has been an erosion in the ability of governing bodies to wield power and influence, or at least do so without any accountability to another authority. The European Court of Justice recently ruled against FIFA and UEFA by saying those organizations couldn’t prevent teams or players from participating in the proposed Super League.

“One of the key issues in the Super League case is UEFA is both a regulator and a participant because they have their own competition,” said Bank. “And so the idea is that you’re limiting the Super League to prop up the Champions League. That is a classic problem in competition law.”

In the U.S., the NCAA, which governs collegiate sports, is facing several antitrust lawsuits relating to rules on athletes’ NIL rights. It already lost an anti-trust case (with Kessler leading the charge) that challenged the NCAA’s ability to limit benefits to college athletes. More recently the USSF caved to MLS by relaxing its requirement that all MLS teams participate in the U.S. Open Cup.

“I think that every governing body is probably having their internal counsel and perhaps outside counsel putting together memos on where they stand with respect to potential antitrust challenges,” said Duru. “I think there is a phenomenon of these challenges coming to the fore in a way that they didn’t previously.”

There is also the looming antitrust trial pitting the now defunct North American Soccer League against the USSF, with the NASL claiming in court documents (also reviewed by ESPN) that the USSF conspired with MLS to drive it out of business. That is set to go to trial in September.

It begs the overall of question of: Aside from running competitions, what is the remit of governing bodies? In this instance, the USSF may find itself with no other choice but to allow the games to go forward and settle the lawsuit. Otherwise it could be left with the lawsuit going to trial, which could leave it paying treble damages to Relevent.

But there are some unanswered questions. Will FIFA allow any league to play games anywhere, or does this only affect the U.S.? Will Relevent be the only promoter that benefits, or could SUM and others cash in as well?

What’s next?

The settlement conference set for July 29 was postponed, and both sides are required to engage in discussions before such talks take place. If those discussions don’t bear fruit, the case is set to go to trial some time next year.