By Tyler O’Hara
Ongoing labor tensions between U.S. soccer’s governing body and the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team (“WNT”) have resulted in a federal lawsuit over the team’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). On February 4th, 2016 the United States Soccer Federation (“USSF”) filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois seeking declaratory relief against the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team Players Association (“Players Association”) for anticipatory breach of contract. USSF asserts that it is reluctantly bringing the suit as a result of contradictory statements made by the Players Association’s newly appointed Executive Director, Richard Nichols, regarding the validity of the CBA.
In its complaint, the USSF seeks a determination as to whether it had reached a valid CBA with the Players Association in March 2013, covering the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016. According to the USSF, this agreement consists of terms contained in the previous 2005-2012 CBA (notably including its “No Strike, No Lockouts” clause (Article VI § 6.1)) and was supplemented by a “memorandum of understanding” signed by the two parties on March 19, 2013. When 2005-2012 CBA expired, the USSF and the Players Association began operating under the March memorandum, which would serve to govern their operational relationship until the end of 2016. However, Nichols and the Players Association contend that the memorandum of understanding was not a supplement of the 2005-2012 CBA, but rather a new, temporary agreement whose terms expressly expired the old CBA.
USSF centers its primary legal and factual arguments on the interpretation of the memorandum and the intent of both parties at the time of its execution. In contrast, the Players Association’s primary legal and factual arguments focus on the express language of the memorandum, the 2005-2012 CBA, and the limited scope of the memorandum.
Procedural History
On February 3, 2016 the USSF filed their complaint against the Players Association and the case was assigned to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The following day, Judge Coleman directed the USSF to give notice and for the parties to discuss the status of the case, settlement options, and whether they would consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. The parties were additionally required to file a joint status report by March 30, 2016 and a status hearing was set for April 4, 2016.
In an attempt to speed up the process, the USSF filed a motion for an initial status conference, seeking an expedited briefing schedule for its anticipated motion for summary judgment. USSF cited the need for prompt resolution in the face of rapidly approaching WNT events such as the March 2016 “She Believes” international tournament and the 2016 Summer Olympic games. If the Players Association was found to not be bound by a CBA, and subsequently the “no strike” clause within that agreement, the USSF feared “significant financial and reputational implications” from a potential WNT strike.
Judge Coleman granted the motion for an initial status conference and moved the status hearing forward from April 4 to March 3, with the additional requirement that the parties still file a joint status report. Filed on February 24th, the report elucidated both parties’ belief that the case was unlikely to settle, that neither consented to proceeding before a Magistrate Judge, and provided a mutually agreed upon schedule for the anticipated summary judgment motions. The current schedule:
Date
Event
March 1-31
Parties to complete discovery regarding motions for summary judgment.
April 12 —
Deadline for both parties to file motions for summary judgment
May 3 —
Oppositions to motions for summary judgment due
May 12 —
Replies in support of motion of summary judgment due
May 24 —
Oral argument on motions for summary judgment, should the Court desire to hear argument.
Finally, the joint status report specified that the USSF was not currently requesting a jury trial, however it reserved the right to seek damages and a jury trial should the Players Association or the WNT engage in a strike or other job action. The Players Association noted it anticipated requesting a jury trial in its answer, which it did when it was later filed on March 1st.
– Complaint for Anticipatory Breach of Contract and for Declaratory Relief at 38, U.S. Soccer Fed’n v. U.S. Women’s Nat. Soccer Team Players Ass’n, No. 1:16-cv-01923 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2016).
Tyler O’Hara is a 3rd year law student at the University of North Carolina School of Law looking to pursue a career in sports and entertainment law. To contact please email at tohara@live.unc.edu
