Let’s talk about two topics that everyone can always agree on… the economy and sports.

In case you missed it this week, the North American Soccer League is filing an antitrust lawsuit against the United States Soccer Federation. The chief justification for the lawsuit is the claim that the USSF has engaged in “anticompetitive” behavior in the structure of American soccer and in its support for Major League Soccer.

I am currently in grad school for economics, and I have spent hours reading about antitrust laws. It’s not something that usually relates to Soccer ‘n’ Sweet Tea, but today, it really does.

The fundamental question at play here is: Should laws be interpreted by the “letter of the law” or in the “spirit of the law.”

This debate can be found everywhere from how one should interpret the constitution to how a referee should control a soccer match.

In the case of antitrust laws, the answer to this fundamental question has swung back and forth. While the purpose of this article is not to go in depth into the history of antitrust laws, it is important to recognize that the interpretation of antitrust laws and even the laws themselves have not always been the same.

With this in mind, does the NASL have a case?

If we were to take the letter of the law approach, the NASL would absolutely have a case. Almost all professional sports, especially in America, display some form of monopoly power and actively prevent the creation of new leagues (i.e. prevent competition). The foundation of MLS is no different.

While the NASL may well be able to prove that the USSF has encouraged “anticompetitive” behavior, this alone is not all that it will take to violate antitrust laws. There are already plenty of examples of anticompetitive behavior that both federal and state governments completely accept.

Take for example utility companies. Utility companies are often what is called a “Natural Monopoly” due to excessive economies of scale. Excessive economies of scale means that the cost of setting up such a company is so large that the only efficient way to produce utilities for society is to leave it up to one firm to fill the entire market and regulate what price the monopoly sets. Otherwise, the cost per unit of utility would be incredibly high for firms and eventually consumers.

In sports, we have something similar at play. For a sport to reach its full potential, it needs TV contracts, multi-million dollar stadiums, and the ability to honor player/coach contracts. Such huge requirements make it extremely unlikely for there to be two successful competing top-tier leagues in the same market.

Or to put it in other words, we have the setting for a Natural Monopoly.

With this in mind, the courts are unlikely to favor the NASL in any antitrust debates. Yes, the USSF has probably engaged in anticompetitive behavior. However, with the massive costs of professional sports, the USSF will also be able to make the argument that such behavior can be reasonably justified, was put in place “for stability of the game,” and is a behavior with plenty of precedence in other professional sports leagues.

The NASL claims that the USSF has unfairly made “ business arrangements” and “marketing contracts” with Soccer United Marketing (SUM).

This grievance is actually why the NASL has a right to be angry and also exactly why they will likely lose any future case. The business arrangements of the USSF are something that while they may seem unfair, can also be argued to be a necessary cost of running a professional sports league. Unless the NASL can convincingly prove that they were directly targeted by the USSF, the USSF has a solid alibi.

Even if we take the NASL’s position for a moment and say their grievance is valid, the process of disrupting these previous business arrangements is something that a lot of people with a lot invested in the USSF will pay to keep from being altered.

It is understandable why the NASL would take such action. They have a valid concern and they are in an ever-increasingly desperate situation. However, don’t expect any fruit from this desperate move due to the USSF’s connections and decent arguments for the necessity of high-cost investments and setting certain criteria for it’s teams.

It is also important to remember that antitrust laws were not made with professional sports in mind. They were made to cease anticompetitive behavior in a time where the thought of a multi-billion dollar professional sports industry wasn’t even a concept.

Even if the NASL could prove clear violation of the “letter of the law,” the USSF would still have the argument that those laws should not apply to professional sports and do not violate the “spirit” of antitrust laws.

We’ve been down this road before…

Further exacerbating the NASL’s problem is that the strategy of threatening an antitrust lawsuit in the sports realm has been tried before and failed in a pretty hilarious fashion.

Before he was president, Donald J. Trump helped a team of United States Football League owners to make similar antitrust threats to the NFL. The USFL at the time was attempting to get into the professional football market and claimed that the structure of the NFL was anticompetitive.

Of course, now there is no more USFL and the NFL not only quelled the threat but is not even facing the threat of potential competitors down the road. The funny part about the USFL’s antitrust lawsuit is that the USFL actually won; and they were awarded $1.

$1 being awarded is actually where I will conclude this article. Even if the NASL is able to successfully argue against all the earlier points and able to win a lawsuit (extremely unlikely), the chances that they will be awarded something that exceeds their costs of litigation is even more unlikely. Expect the NASL to earn $1 from this while their league dissolves around them.

In summary, the NASL is correct, the USSF has engaged in anticompetitive behavior. However, just because something is anticompetitive (even in the U.S.), that does not make it strictly illegal. It may feel unfair, but the NASL will likely lose these antitrust lawsuits against the USSF due to the current interpretation of antitrust laws. And even if the NASL does win, the costs of litigation will almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

Should this be the case? Well that’s another question. But for now, don’t expect the USSF to be sweating this threat from the NASL.

And thankfully, Cosmos owner Rocco B. Commisso and Miami FC owner Riccardo Silva were both born in Italy, so the chances of seeing them in the Oval Office someday are pretty low.