The plaintiffs in Mehr v. Fèdèration Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), didn’t mince words in responding to FIFA’s motion to dismiss their 2014 lawsuit.
The current and former soccer players re-affirmed their position that FIFA’s approach to managing the concussion problem is a “scattershot, piecemeal and ineffective approach to critical health and safety issues,” or exactly “what has led to the defendants’ woefully inadequate management of youth concussions.”
Original Lawsuit
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in 2014 against FIFA as well as the U.S. Youth Soccer and American Youth Soccer leagues. The leagues are responsible for over three million child and adolescent soccer players in the United States.
They alleged that the defendants failed to adopt effective policies to evaluate and manage concussions, a common occurrence. they claimed, at all levels of the game. The plaintiffs also alleged that a lack of effective policies poses a greater danger to players that are women and children, since both groups are more vulnerable to traumatic and long-lasting brain injury. In addition, they alleged that FIFA’s guidelines appear to suggest that players self-diagnose brain injuries by allowing a referee and not a medical professional to determine if the player is too injured to continue. This creates a problem, since “returning a player to play before fully recovered negligently puts him or her at risk of a permanent brain injury.”
The plaintiffs, who filed the claim in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, are seeking to force FIFA and its U.S. affiliates to implement up-to-date guidelines for detection of head injuries and for return to play after a concussion. The suit also calls for regulation of heading by players under 17 years old, and a rule change to permit substitution of players for medical evaluation purposes. Currently, FIFA rules generally allow only three substitutions per game with no clear provision for head injuries, the plaintiffs claimed. If an athlete bleeds, even from a scrape, removal is required, but no similar rule exists for concussions. FIFA provides no guidance on substitutions in youth games in the U.S.
The defendants ultimately moved to dismiss.
Assailing the Motion to Dismiss
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and counsel for the plaintiffs, suggested that the defendants “have made an argument (in their motion to dismiss) that they had no duty to protect their players against concussions — an argument that we find morally and legally outrageous. I can only imagine the surprise and shock of parents if they were told that the governing bodies for millions of kids who play soccer believe they have no responsibility to protect these young players.”
Specifically in the brief, the plaintiffs claimed that “FIFA erroneously argues that: (1) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over FIFA; (2) the Complaint should be dismissed because nonparty IFAB (International Football Association Board) is an indispensable party; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing; and (4) the Complaint does not state any valid claim. FIFA is wrong on all counts.”
Elaborating on the question of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs wrote that “FIFA has engaged in myriad intentional soccer-related contacts with California, and the plaintiffs’ claims arise from the failure of FIFA and the other defendants to take steps to reduce players’ injuries, including concussions. As to IFAB, FIFA’s ‘Statutes’ expressly give IFAB any power that it may appear to have. And the plaintiffs have amply alleged factual material supporting every element of their causes of action and their standing to maintain those claims.”
