Closed Leagues?

Are all of our new leagues in compliance with this USSF bylaw?

Bylaw 603. INTERPLAY
Section 1. One Organization Member may not require that all of the players, coaches, teams, and administrators of another Organization Member (who have been registered with, and fees paid to, the Federation as required by section 1 of Bylaw 212) be registered with the first Organization Member as a condition for only some of those players, coaches, teams, or administrators participating in the activities of the first Organization Member. The first Organization Member may require registration of only those players, coaches, teams, and administrators of the other Organization Member that actually participate in the activities of the first Organization Member. Those players, coaches, teams, and administrators of the other Organization Member registering with the first Organization Member shall comply with all of the regular registration requirements of the first Organization Member.

603 Section 2. An Organization Member (other than a Professional League) shall not discriminate
against the participation of players, teams, coaches or clubs on the basis of that player, coach,
team, or club’s membership in, or affiliation with, another organization. The Federation
encourages its Organization Members to allow teams of all other Members to participate in
tournaments sponsored by them or any of its organization members when the teams otherwise
29
comply with the tournament eligibility requirements. A tournament sponsor may
charge each team of another Member an additional fee of not more than $25 to participate in the
tournament.

That is a good one. I like this one better though. I'm very foggy on exactly how JDL attained the authority to ignore USSF bylaws & policies. My best guess is, it's not a US league, it's Italian or French or something......maybe it's Russian?

Policy 212-1—Participation in Affiliated Organizations
Preamble: The purpose of this policy is to clarify terms under which participants may participate in the various programs offered by Organization Members. This policy should be read in conjunction with Bylaws 212 and 603.
Section 1. For purposes of this policy, the following shall apply:
(a) “Affiliated Organization” means any Organization that is a member or identifiable subset of any USSF Organization Member.
(b) “Organization” means a club, league, team, association, or other group of Participants.
(c) “Organization Member” shall have the meaning set forth in USSF Bylaw 109. (d) “Participant” means any player, coach, trainer, manager, administrator, or official that is sponsored, financed, coached, organized, or administered by an Organization.
(e) Any reference in this policy to registering with, becoming a member of, or complying with the requirements of an Organization Member may include registering with, becoming a member of, or complying with the requirements of a member of that Organization Member.
Section 2. Every Participant in every Affiliated Organization must be registered with at least one Organization Member. A Participant may be registered with more than one Organization Member.

IMO JDL didn't and does not have the authority.

JDL is USCS sanctioned. NTX is sanctioned by USYS. USCS and USYS both report to USSF.

JDL (and any other league) does appear to have the authority to create the league with invite-only member clubs to the exclusion of other clubs, but they certainly do not have the authority to prohibit those members from using players registered elsewhere for USYS play. To do so directly violates 603, section 2.

It appears that either USCS "blessed" the exclusionary nature of the league, or this was done after the fact by JDL without USCS knowledge or approval. Based on the timing of everything, it is most likely the latter. If so, then the rule that JDL clubs cannot field teams with players from other NTX clubs is void as it doesn't comply with its own league sanction from USCS, and USCS should step in and make it clear to JDL that they cannot prohibit NTX players from participating in JDL with member clubs.

If USCS did approve the exclusion, the USSF should be the one to step in and void the rule.

Do you actually believe those voting to exclude Kicks players have recently read the USCS / USSF rules and bylaws?



Do you think they would care?

Who would be willing to challenge them?

SickofSilliness wrote:Do you actually believe those voting to exclude Kicks players have recently read the USCS / USSF rules and bylaws?



Do you think they would care?

Who would be willing to challenge them?

No.

They should. They have much to lose if they don't.

The numbers are growing.

My understanding -

The Big 5 do, apparently, have the ability to create an invite-only league.

They apparently don't have the ability to prohibit those members from using players registered elsewhere.

So the only issue is that D'Feeters can't be prohibited from using Kicks players.

Who will challenge the position?  Certainly not one of the 4 DOC who voted to exclude Kicks.  No one outside the Big 5 would have standing to challenge the rules of the invite-only league.  That would leave D'Feeters to challenge (or Kicks as some type of representative under the D'Feeters club) - thereby running the risk of not being "invited" next time.

You think the other 4 DOC would forget a challenge like that?  

Remember- these are the same 4 DOC, who, in the interest of improving competition, voted the exclude Kicks players from the JDL league.

SickofSilliness wrote:My understanding -

The Big 5 do, apparently, have the ability to create an invite-only league.

They apparently don't have the ability to prohibit those members from using players registered elsewhere.

So the only issue is that D'Feeters can't be prohibited from using Kicks players.

Who will challenge the position?  Certainly not one of the 4 DOC who voted to exclude Kicks.  No one outside the Big 5 would have standing to challenge the rules of the invite-only league.  That would leave D'Feeters to challenge (or Kicks as some type of representative under the D'Feeters club) - thereby running the risk of not being "invited" next time.

You think the other 4 DOC would forget a challenge like that?  

Remember- these are the same 4 DOC, who, in the interest of improving competition, voted the exclude Kicks players from the JDL league.

I would suggest that the appropriate "challenge" would come from the players, not the club, and the challenge could come from a much larger pool than Kicks.

Is not by definition and practice ECNL an exclusionary or invite only league?

ECNL is comprised of ECNL clubs.

In its own bylaws it is inclusive. For example... Discovery players. The number of discovery players is limited in ECNL, but they are not discriminated against.

From USCS bylaws...

AFFILIATIONS
Section 1. Affiliations. The NACSC is a Member of and shall maintain its Membership in the USSF.
Section 2. Other Affiliations. No NACSC Member shall be prohibited from affiliating with other USSF sanctioned soccer organizations.

OOOOPPPPSSSS!!!!

OLJW wrote:From USCS bylaws...

AFFILIATIONS
Section 1. Affiliations. The NACSC is a Member of and shall maintain its Membership in the USSF.
Section 2. Other Affiliations. No NACSC Member shall be prohibited from affiliating with other USSF sanctioned soccer organizations.

OOOOPPPPSSSS!!!!

Where is someone being prohibited from affiliating with other USSF sanctioned organizations?

D'Feeters cannot use Kicks players that are registered via US Club as Dfeeters because via USYS they are registered as Kicks. That is the basis for not allowing a player to play... completely contrary to Federation bylaws for any organization in the country.

Not as I read the bylaws that OLJW or Harambe have published.

If JDL told Kicks or D'Feeters that they could NOT be registered with USYSA and play in JDL...  That would have been a violation.

If JDL told Kicks or D'Feeters that ALL Kicks or D'Feeters teams within the entire club had to be registered with USCS in order for any of their players/teams to participate in JDL...  That would have been a violation.

JDL told Kicks that if the specific team and players who wanted to play in JDL, had to be officially registered with D'Feeters in USYSA.  That does NOT violate any of the above bylaws as I read it.

By the way, I'm not saying that I agree with what the other JDL clubs did, or that it was fair.  I'm just pointing out that what they did does NOT violate the bylaws posted above... at least as I read and interpret them.

Where does JDL, a USCS organization member, derive its authority to determine what goes on in USYSA, an organization that it does not belong to?

It doesn't. However, the requirement that the players/team are registered under the same parent club in both organizations does not violate any of the bylaws published above. It may be a technicality, but it's a valid one.

Again, if I am interpreting things correctly, the only thing that Kicks would have to do to satisfy the other JDL clubs, would be to submit a Name Change Form with NTSSA, and change their club affiliation to D'Feeters on that form. They could still keep Kicks in the team name to clearly identify that they are a Kicks team.

There is nothing in NTSSA bylaws that would prevent JM from coaching the team under this scenario, and nothing that says that there has to be any kind of financial agreement between Kicks and D'Feeters to do so.

So again, unless I am missing some kind of bylaw or rule that I am unaware of, the question I have, is why didn't Kicks and D'Feeters come to a simple understanding and submit the one form necessary to do this? That sounds like more of an issue between Kicks and D'Feeters, than between those clubs and the other JDL clubs.

NTSSA has nothing to do with this, they operate under USYSA and have zero say as to what goes on in USCS.

JDL has formed under USCS and has zero say as to what goes on in USYSA. JDL must meet the minimum standard of the USCS bylaws & policies.
More USCS bylaws,
(a) In addition, pursuant to USSF Bylaw 603, a NACSC Member shall not discriminate against the participation of players or teams on the basis of that player or team’s Membership in, or affiliation with, another organization.

JDL must meet that standard.

OLJW wrote:NTSSA has nothing to do with this, they operate under USYSA and have zero say as to what goes on in USCS.

JDL has formed under USCS and has zero say as to what goes on in USYSA. JDL must meet the minimum standard of the USCS bylaws & policies.  
More USCS bylaws,
(a) In addition, pursuant to USSF Bylaw 603, a NACSC Member shall not discriminate against the participation of players or teams on the basis of that player or team’s Membership in, or affiliation with, another organization.

JDL must meet that standard.

They are meeting that standard.

They did not say, you can't be a member of USYSA and play in USCS sponsored JDL. In fact, they said, go right ahead and register with USYSA.

All they said, is that if you are going to register with USCS under one club affiliation, then you need to register under the same club affiliation with USYSA. It may be a technicality, but as I read it, that is NOT a violation of the bylaw as they are not preventing Kicks from registering with USYSA.

Now again, if Kicks and D'Feeters both wanted the Kicks teams in JDL so badly, all it would take is filling out 1 form, getting all of the Kicks players parents to sign the form, and submitting the form to NTSSA. NTSSA doesn't even charge a processing fee for it. You can argue that they shouldn't be required to do that, but I mean, is that all you are going to let get in the way of your playing in JDL???

Again, all this requires is for Kicks to say, we'd like to do that with no strings attached, and D'Feeters to say, o.k., you can do that, we won't change anything else about our arrangement. JM can still coach the team. Kicks players will still pay Kicks dues through Kicks system. Your team name will just be D'Feeters Kicks. Heck, keep your Kicks unis and we'll just give you a little D'Feeters patch to sew on them.

There are no rules or bylaws that prevent that from happening. Now, if Kicks and D'Feeters are unwilling to come to such an agreement... different story, and frankly, not the problem of the other JDL clubs.

As I see it, the other JDL clubs basically said, look, if any of our members want to give one of our league bids to a team, that team has to be "officially" under the club umbrella of one of our members, not just a "guest". Not much different from how ECNL operates. You or I may not agree with that, but I can see where the clubs are coming from. Again, unless there is something that I am not aware of, this isn't a very big roadblock that was put up by the JDL clubs. Why are Kicks and D'Feeters not taking the obvious step to get around it?

This is correct, and there was no nefarious conspiracy in the vote as some would like to claim.

In fact one DOC was rather surprised Kicks opted out as he thought the point of the merger was inclusion in JDL/CL.

Another indie is fully supportive of the rule as it protects his registered players from mid-season "borrowing".

Someone was kind enough to send me the JDL bylaw in question (shown below).

It's pretty much directly in line with all of my comments above in the thread, and the workaround I proposed solves the problem.

Is there are more restrictive bylaw in place somewhere that I don't know about, or is there a reason why a simple team name change with NTSSA doesn't fix the issue?

bwgophers wrote:Someone was kind enough to send me the JDL bylaw in question (shown below).

It's pretty much directly in line with all of my comments above in the thread, and the workaround I proposed solves the problem.

Is there are more restrictive bylaw in place somewhere that I don't know about, or is there a reason why a simple team name change with NTSSA doesn't fix the issue?

BW is correct insofar that the paperwork name change reregistration would solve the issue for Kicks kids wanting to play for Feet. But strongly disagree with the interpretation of 603 (2). the bylaw quoted flat out discriminates against players registered with NTX.

Another question for the powers that be:

Since USCS requires bylaws at the time sanctioning requests are made (May/June), and this bylaw was clearly written last week AFTER USCS sanctioned JDL, does USCS even know about the bait and switch? My guess is they did not, but do now, and never would have sanctioned the league with that bylaw.

USCS  bylaws say they can't do that. Read one, then read the other. These 2 statements are diametrically opposed and not reconcilable. USCS bylaws trump JDL bylaws, simple as that.

(a) In addition, pursuant to USSF Bylaw 603, a NACSC Member shall not discriminate against the participation of players or teams on the basis of that player or team’s Membership in, or affiliation with, another organization.

That JDL bylaw is an attempt to coerce NTSSA and therefore USYSA affiliation. Nevermind that JDL has no authority with either of those organizations. JDL's own governing body (USCS) expressly prohibits that exact behavior.

OLJW wrote:USCS  bylaws say they can't do that. Read one, then read the other. These 2 statements are diametrically opposed and not reconcilable. USCS bylaws trump JDL bylaws, simple as that.

(a) In addition, pursuant to USSF Bylaw 603, a NACSC Member shall not discriminate against the participation of players or teams on the basis of that player or team’s Membership in, or affiliation with, another organization.

That JDL bylaw is an attempt to coerce NTSSA and therefore USYSA affiliation. Nevermind that JDL has no authority with either of those organizations. JDL's own governing body (USCS) expressly prohibits that exact behavior.

Well, I guess it will have to go to a judge or jury, because I interpret that bylaw differently. My interpretation is that a US Club League (JDL) can't exclude a team from participating in their league because the team or club also chooses to participate in a different USSF sanctioned organization (i.e. NTSSA sponsored by USYSA). i.e. JDL can't tell at team that they can't also play USYSA sponsored tournaments or leagues. Just like NTSSA can't prevent LHGCL players from also playing in ECNL, TCL, JDL, or Primetime leagues.

Same as ECNL can't tell one of their member clubs that they can't also be members of USYSA and have teams that play in USYSA league. However, ECNL can set rules regarding which clubs can participate in ECNL, just like JDL can. I don't know if ECNL has a bylaw on it's book that is similar to the JDL bylaw.

So it really comes down to whether the NACSC bylaw is interpreted to extend down requirements about player registration within a particular club, or if it only refers to restrictions regarding sanctioning organizations.

I'll let the lawyers figure that one out.

However, I still say that there is a VERY simple solution here, so why not just fill out the form and all of this goes away?

Harambe wrote:  the bylaw quoted flat out discriminates against players registered with NTX.

No it doesn't.  It does NOT say that players registered with NTSSA are prevented from playing in JDL.  All it states is that if a JDL club wants to add players to the roster of one of their teams playing in JDL, that the player has to be registered as a player with the JDL member club BOTH in NTSSA (USYSA) and US Club.  

As it relates to USYSA, the bylaw is actually INCLUSIVE.  

Again, it comes down to interpretation, and how far down the chain does the bylaw/rule apply.

So again, explain why you wouldn't just submit the single form that makes everything go away, as opposed to filing protests, calling hearings, filing lawsuits, etc...   UNLESS, it's really D'Feeters that is throwing up the significant roadblocks by not agreeing to just let Kicks submit the Name Change form and participate under their umbrella.  Or UNLESS JM doesn't want to put the D'Feeters name in front of Kicks on one of his flagship teams.  Neither of those situations are really a JDL, Texans, Sting, Solar, or FCD problem.

Or... if it turns out that it's really not that big of a deal to either Kicks or D'Feeters, let's all just shut up about it and move on ...

Not to mention that the solution to the problem would also allow Kicks and D'Feeters to CPP players between those teams in LHGCL...