A federal judge from the Northern District of Oklahoma has denied a plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a case where an amateur soccer club based in Tulsa sought legal intervention that would have allowed it to play at its chosen venue.
In so ruling, the court determined that while the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if it denied the motion, it failed to satisfy the remaining requisite factors for the court’s intervention, such as the likelihood of success on the merits.
By way of background, plaintiff Tulsa Athletics, LLC (the Athletic) is a member of the National Premier Soccer League, Inc. (NPSL), and the Athletic filed this case after the NPSL refused to allow the Athletic to play home games at its chosen venue, Athletic Community Field at Hicks Park (Athletic Field).
The individual owners of the Athletic, a limited liability company, are Dr. Thomas Kern and Vincent Dalesandro. The court noted that the Athletic belongs to the NPSL, which is organized as a not-for-profit corporation under Delaware law. Cindy Spera is the managing director of the NPSL and Kenneth Farrell is the chair of the NPSL’s board of directors. The Athletic has been a member of the NPSL since 2013, and the team has had difficulty securing an appropriate venue during its tenure in the NPSL. From 2013 to 2016, the Athletic played home games at Drillers Stadium, which was formerly the home stadium for a minor league baseball team. However, Drillers Stadium was demolished after the 2016 season and was no longer available as a venue, and the Athletic played the next season at a local high school soccer field. The Athletic played the following three seasons at Veterans Park in Tulsa, which was an open park that lacked on-site facilities. Veterans Park did not meet the minimum requirements for a soccer stadium under NPSL rules, but the Athletic received a waiver from the NPSL allowing the team to play at Veterans Park. The Athletic alleges that waivers for venues that are non-compliant with NPSL rules are commonly granted by the NPSL.
The Athletic continued to search for a permanent field that would satisfy the venue requirements of the NPSL. A stadium must meet the following requirements:
• Closed Stadium (not an open park or a park with temporary enclosures)
• Seating for five hundred (500) people
• Field size measuring a minimum of 65 yards x 110 yards and a maximum of 80 yards x 120 yards
• Locker room for visiting teams
• Showers onsite for visiting team
• Referee locker room/changing area (proper indoor space, not an outside tent/shed/storage fixture; space must not require officials to walk through teams’ locker rooms)
• Accessible Press Box with power outlets and shelter from rain
• WiFi access in Press Box
• Stadium lights
• Electronic scoreboard and working time clock
• Ample sideline space for team benches
• Working PA system
The Athletic identified Hicks Park in east Tulsa as a potential venue because it met most of the stadium requirements under NPSL rules. Hicks Park is fully enclosed with a chain link fence and has a single point of entry, and the Athletic obtained an exclusive license from the City of Tulsa for use of the field. The Athletic has expanded the bleachers to accommodate up to 650 fans and has installed permanent railings to separate spectators from the field. The field is also equipped with a press box in the form of repurposed shipping containers, and the press box is fully connected to electricity and WiFi.
The Athletic renamed the field as Athletic Field, and the NPSL initially approved use of the field as the Athletic’s home field for the 2022 season. However, the NPSL revoked its approval following the Athletic’s first playoff game in July 2022, and the NPSL accused the Athletic of playing in an “open park.” The Athletic was forced to play its next playoff game at a local middle school, and the Athletic states that it attempted to work with the NPSL to determine how Athletic Field could be improved for the 2023 season. The Athletic claims that the NPSL showed “no genuine interest in evaluating the field or addressing any legitimate concerns,” but the Athletic made additional improvement to the field in preparation for the 2023 season. The Athletic hosted two home games at Athletic Field as part of the U.S. Open Cup, and the field had been approved for use by United States Soccer and the Oklahoma Soccer Association before the games took place. The Athletic alleges that the venue requirements for the U.S. Open Cup are substantially similar to the venue requirements of the NPSL, and the Athletic sent copies of the U.S. Open field evaluations to the NPSL. The NPSL refused to reconsider its decision that Athletic Field was deficient, and the NPSL again referred to the field as an “open park.” The Athletic was required to find an alternate venue for the 2023 season, and it played its home games at Rogers State University in Claremore, Oklahoma. In May 2023, the Women’s Premier Soccer League conducted a site evaluation of Athletic Field after the Athletic expressed interest in forming a team for that league, and the venue was approved for use in WPSL matches.
The Athletic filed two appeals to professional soccer organizations of the NPSL’s decision to prohibit the Athletic from using Athletic Field for home games. On May 23, 2023, the Athletic filed an appeal with the United States Adult Soccer Association (USASA), arguing that its request to use Athletic Field should have been approved by the NPSL. The appeal was denied for lack of jurisdiction, because the appeal concerned a dispute over internal league rules, rather than an alleged violation of the rules of the USASA. The Athletic filed a second appeal to the United States Soccer Federation (USSF), which was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 28, 2024, the Athletic again sought approval from the NPSL to use Athletic Field for its home games. The Athletic alleges that one of its owners, Dr. Kern, was told by members of the NPSL’s board of directors that a site visit would take place, but NPSL management allegedly instructed board members not to conduct a site visit. On March 6, 2024, the NPSL denied the Athletic’s request to use Athletic Field for home games without conducting a site visit, and the short denial letter simply states that the NPSL had previously rejected and denied the Athletic’s request.
On April 1, 2024, the Athletic filed this case in Tulsa County District Court, alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The Athletic named the NPSL, Spera, and Farell as defendants, and the Athletic sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, and money damages. Defendants NPSL and Spera removed the case to this court and, on April 30, 2024, the Athletic filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin the NPSL from prohibiting the Athletic from playing home games at Athletic Field.
Following a status conference on the motion, the NPSL suspended the Athletic for the 2024 season without providing any explanation for the suspension. The entire official statement of the NPSL stated that “Tulsa Athletic’s NPSL membership has been suspended, and the club will not participate in the league’s 2024 season.” The USASA had previously selected the Athletic to host the Steinbrecher Cup, which the Athletic describes as a “competition between the reigning National Amateur Cup champion, the NPSL champion, the USL Two champion and the previous year’s Steinbrecher champion.” However, the Steinbrecher Cup notified the Athletic that it would no longer be permitted to host the event. The Steinbrecher Cup had contacted the NPSL office after learning that the Athletic had been suspended for the 2024 season, and the NPSL office told the Steinbrecher Cup that the Athletic was in “bad standing” with the league. The NPSL also contacted the Athletic’s players and encouraged the players to find another team for the 2024 season, according to the court. The NPSL offered to help the Athletic’s players find a new team, and provided a link to a form for players who were interested in switching teams.
Skipping to the court’s analysis of the motion, the court noted that to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the moving party must establish the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001).
While the plaintiff’s “burden to show irreparable harm is substantial, … plaintiff has identified a serious, non-speculative injury that will likely result prior to the conclusion of this case. Based on the record before the Court, plaintiff will likely be able to show that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
However, the plaintiff failed in showing a “likelihood of success on the merits” because of its reliance on “Oklahoma law to support its argument that the court can intervene in a dispute between a member team and a sports league.” The plaintiff “argues that the court can set aside a decision by a sports league that is arbitrary, capricious, irrational, or made in bad faith. Oklahoma law does not permit courts to interfere with the activities of a voluntary association unless the association has interpreted its own rules ‘in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, not in good faith or in violation of the law of the land.’ Manuel v. Oklahoma City University, 1992 OK CIV APP 73, 833 P.2d 288, 292 (Okla. Civ. App. 1992). In fact, courts should give deference to the decisions of voluntary associations, such as sports leagues, as to interpretation and enforcement of internal rules. Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Assoc., 2013 OK 84, 313 P.3d 891, 896 (Okla. 2013).
“Plaintiff’s reliance on general Oklahoma law concerning court involvement in a dispute between a team and sports league does not tend to show that plaintiff is likely to succeed on any of its claims. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based on an alleged breach of the NPSL bylaws, specifically the bylaw describing the managing director’s duties and powers. The cited bylaw requires the managing director to carry out the following duties:
A. Management of the league’s day to day operations in the active and off season;
B. Enforcing the League rules;
C. Providing the platform for hearing appeals and protests;
D. Encouraging growth in League membership; and
E. Fostering goodwill among the greater community of US Soccer.
The bylaws of the NPSL expressly state that ‘[a]ll words, terms, and provisions of these Bylaws shall be interpreted and defined by and in accordance with Delaware [l]aw.’”
The court went on to side with the defendants on other factors.
“Considering all of the factors, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. Plaintiff has made a substantial showing that it will be irreparably harmed absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction, but the remaining factors are either unsatisfied or neutral. The court notes that substantial actions giving rise to the potential for irreparable harm occurred after plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction had been filed, and the record does not provide an adequate factual basis for the court to evaluate the parties’ arguments concerning the venue dispute. The court leaves open the possibility of the renewal of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction if the evidentiary problems can be cured and plaintiff can identify a viable theory of recovery against defendants NPSL and Spera.”
Tulsa Athletics, LLC v. Nat’l Premier Soccer League, Inc. et al.; N.D. Okla.; Case No. 24-CV-194-CVE-SH; 7/29/24
