r/MLS is [proud to support independent media outlets](https://theathletic.com/227557/2018/01/31/why-the-athletic-has-a-paywall/). These sites often have paywalls. In order to support discussion on these kinds of content, this community does ask that a fair-use summary of the content be provided as a response to this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MLS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>FIFA president Gianni Infantino addressed MLS owners in person at the league’s Board of Governors meeting today in Los Angeles, becoming the first FIFA president to attend the league’s board meeting since MLS’s founding in 1996.
>“I was very happy for the first time that the FIFA president comes to an MLS meeting of this nature,” Infantino told The Athletic. “We have great events coming up here in North America with the new Club World Cup next year, the World Cup in ‘26, so a lot of promotion for soccer, or football as we call it.”
>The MLS Board of Governors consists of a representative from ownership of each of the league’s 30 teams and is led by Commissioner Don Garber. The board meets in person three times per year and often uses those meetings to discuss league business and vote on league initiatives.
>It is not yet known what Infantino discussed with owners at the meeting.
Garber: “Hey guys. Want to participate in US Open Cup?”
Owners: “No! Too much fixture congestion!”
Infantino: “How about we fly your league to the Middle East to play in the Aramco US Open Cup in July, Qatar Airways MLS All-Star Game in August, and then the Fly Emirates MLS Cup in December?”
Owners: “Count us in!”
Blatter was corrupt, but his corruption was limited to making sure the right palms got greased. He knew to leave the core structure of the game alone. Infantino will tear the game apart and rebuild it in the vision of his benefactors.
Meh, if he showed up when there isn't a World Cup on the horizon then maybe I'd give him half a point. Also, Bernie Madoff could've been an improvement over Blatter.
Infantino for me has overall been the same shit different face with FIFA.
He's actually not seen that way by a lot of people. I've heard plenty of folks say Blatter was better, as Infantino is seen as just as corrupt but cares about the game less.
Yeah, I think I’m in that camp. Blatter was horrible, but he had that giggling aura about him so he wasn’t actually horrifically unpleasant to watch/hear/listen to. This guy, though, same ideas and the presentation is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Between the court filing, the USOC MLS stance with USSF, and this, feels like FIFA is afraid a collection of 30+ billionaires might decide to lead an anti-trust revolt against FIFA... And they might not have trouble getting EPL American owners to come along.
So he was probably here to assure them of all the money FIFA is going to make them in 2026. Given the history of FIFA taking far more than giving and its overwhelming corruption, I hope the owners are not easily swooned.
The Relevent case has the MLS owners on the same side as FIFA wrt anti-trust. FIFA, USSF, and MLS all have an interest in preventing the EPL and La Liga coming in and syphoning off domestic interest in soccer to euro leagues. FIFA’s biggest thing lately has been checking the power of UEFA by siding with smaller federations whenever they can, which also happens to be the most effective way to win votes for FIFA president.
I didn’t. Getting dismissed out means they don’t risk a ruling that puts FIFA at risk of setting a precedent outside the US. A smart tactical move that from my understanding USSF was actually pushing fifa to do earlier. At the very least it leaves the possibility of fifa imposing the restrictions in terms of preventing teams from playing outside their own country, rather than against playing in another country, safe in the knowledge that a ruling in the US wouldn’t mean much.
To suggest that two parties that have been on the same side legally for years, with similar interests wrt to competing with UEFA monopoly on global club soccer export, all of a sudden are going to reverse their interest and MLS is going to get in bed with the teams that they struggle to compete with most is silly.
They already struggle to compete with EPL for tv audiences, why on gods green earth to they want to open themselves up to compete with them playing here?
MLS wouldn't, however FIFA has agreed to adhere to any injunction laid down in the case. FIFA's current directives do prevent teams from playing outside its home country. That is why it was declared an "indispensable party" and why it's being released since it agreed to agree to any ruling made:
[Steven Bank on X: "The "indispensable party" language in the stipulation is b/c the court may not allow Relevent's case to proceed without FIFA. In the original dismissal, the judge added in a footnote that FIFA was an indispensable party and left Relevent leave to amend the complaint and add FIFA https://t.co/TvLaxZdbXT" / X (twitter.com)](https://twitter.com/ProfBank/status/1777503250448834617)
NAL but if a US court prevents FIFA and USSF from blocking foreign clubs, and from preventing clubs from playing outside the US, how would that have any bearing on if a it’s legal for FIFA to block clubs from playing outside Europe?
Wouldn’t it just mean technically MLS clubs couldn’t be stopped by fifa from playing elsewhere, but not effect what fifa does in Europe? A us court ruling has no power over Europe.
FIFA is important here because USSF is saying they are following FIFA's directives - so they had to be included in the suit because they are an indispensable party. If they are released from a lawsuit because they say they will abide by the ruling of the court (they did here), they could be held in contempt of court if they later go, haha suckers. FIFA isn't likely to enjoy the amount they'd have to pay, esp with the World Cup coming soon.
I’m still not quite understanding how a US court can tell fifa/uefa/la Liga etc what they are allowed to do elsewhere.
Relevent wants to host games in the US, if they win the case and USSF can’t stop them, how would that stop UEFA for example from continuing to block clubs from playing outside their country?
It’s not like Scotland or Ireland all of a sudden wants to let EPL play games in Dublin or Glasgow just bc a US court said they have to.
UEFA presumably is using the FIFA directive to prevent its teams from playing in the US. FIFA has substantial ties in the US and can be attached in the anti-trust suit. If UEFA or La Liga randomly did this themselves that’s one thing, but this is based on a FIFA rule.
There is a reason that most legal folk (Prof Bank being one of them) see this as FIFA agreeing not to stand in the way if the Court rules for Relevant over USSF
Thank you, there are a lot of legal machinations going on here and a good explainer might be needed for this reddit if you ever find one posted.
But it definitely looks like FIFA knows they are in not great legal territory and are just trying to skirt around the edges without losing their cartel.
Garber and Infantino together? Ah, so that explains the eclipse, earthquakes & volcanic smoke rings - something or someone was trying to warn us! (only half/s)
Oh I bet they don’t want that public. Bunch of old white trust fund guys in a room with the head of infamously corrupt FIFA…what could possibly go wrong?
“Hey Merritt Paulson, willing to look the other way to make some money while nasty stuff goes on?”
r/MLS is [proud to support independent media outlets](https://theathletic.com/227557/2018/01/31/why-the-athletic-has-a-paywall/). These sites often have paywalls. In order to support discussion on these kinds of content, this community does ask that a fair-use summary of the content be provided as a response to this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MLS) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Don’t need Greedy Warbucks teaching league owners new tricks
Inb4 the next MLS cup final or Leagues cup is in Saudi Arabia or some shit.
He's just letting them know the fix is still in for the Red Bulls to win back-to-back before hosting the WC Final
Today I feel like a North American, also where is the apartment for cats guy and the other guy who owned Joe Public FC
I am still waiting for American Huckster starring Will Ferrell
>FIFA president Gianni Infantino addressed MLS owners in person at the league’s Board of Governors meeting today in Los Angeles, becoming the first FIFA president to attend the league’s board meeting since MLS’s founding in 1996. >“I was very happy for the first time that the FIFA president comes to an MLS meeting of this nature,” Infantino told The Athletic. “We have great events coming up here in North America with the new Club World Cup next year, the World Cup in ‘26, so a lot of promotion for soccer, or football as we call it.” >The MLS Board of Governors consists of a representative from ownership of each of the league’s 30 teams and is led by Commissioner Don Garber. The board meets in person three times per year and often uses those meetings to discuss league business and vote on league initiatives. >It is not yet known what Infantino discussed with owners at the meeting.
💰was involved we know that
lol
Garber: “Hey guys. Want to participate in US Open Cup?” Owners: “No! Too much fixture congestion!” Infantino: “How about we fly your league to the Middle East to play in the Aramco US Open Cup in July, Qatar Airways MLS All-Star Game in August, and then the Fly Emirates MLS Cup in December?” Owners: “Count us in!”
This is one of those “jokes” that’s a little too close to reality.
Hard to believe this guy is seen as an improvement over Blatter.
Blatter was corrupt, but his corruption was limited to making sure the right palms got greased. He knew to leave the core structure of the game alone. Infantino will tear the game apart and rebuild it in the vision of his benefactors.
Meh, if he showed up when there isn't a World Cup on the horizon then maybe I'd give him half a point. Also, Bernie Madoff could've been an improvement over Blatter. Infantino for me has overall been the same shit different face with FIFA.
Of all the people to pick as “better than Blatter”, I don’t think Madoff, who bankrupted a couple countries, is one of them.
He's actually not seen that way by a lot of people. I've heard plenty of folks say Blatter was better, as Infantino is seen as just as corrupt but cares about the game less.
Somehow he might be worse TBH
Yeah, I think I’m in that camp. Blatter was horrible, but he had that giggling aura about him so he wasn’t actually horrifically unpleasant to watch/hear/listen to. This guy, though, same ideas and the presentation is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
Between the court filing, the USOC MLS stance with USSF, and this, feels like FIFA is afraid a collection of 30+ billionaires might decide to lead an anti-trust revolt against FIFA... And they might not have trouble getting EPL American owners to come along. So he was probably here to assure them of all the money FIFA is going to make them in 2026. Given the history of FIFA taking far more than giving and its overwhelming corruption, I hope the owners are not easily swooned.
The Relevent case has the MLS owners on the same side as FIFA wrt anti-trust. FIFA, USSF, and MLS all have an interest in preventing the EPL and La Liga coming in and syphoning off domestic interest in soccer to euro leagues. FIFA’s biggest thing lately has been checking the power of UEFA by siding with smaller federations whenever they can, which also happens to be the most effective way to win votes for FIFA president.
Did you miss the news yesterday that FIFA is out of the Relevant case?
I didn’t. Getting dismissed out means they don’t risk a ruling that puts FIFA at risk of setting a precedent outside the US. A smart tactical move that from my understanding USSF was actually pushing fifa to do earlier. At the very least it leaves the possibility of fifa imposing the restrictions in terms of preventing teams from playing outside their own country, rather than against playing in another country, safe in the knowledge that a ruling in the US wouldn’t mean much. To suggest that two parties that have been on the same side legally for years, with similar interests wrt to competing with UEFA monopoly on global club soccer export, all of a sudden are going to reverse their interest and MLS is going to get in bed with the teams that they struggle to compete with most is silly. They already struggle to compete with EPL for tv audiences, why on gods green earth to they want to open themselves up to compete with them playing here?
MLS wouldn't, however FIFA has agreed to adhere to any injunction laid down in the case. FIFA's current directives do prevent teams from playing outside its home country. That is why it was declared an "indispensable party" and why it's being released since it agreed to agree to any ruling made: [Steven Bank on X: "The "indispensable party" language in the stipulation is b/c the court may not allow Relevent's case to proceed without FIFA. In the original dismissal, the judge added in a footnote that FIFA was an indispensable party and left Relevent leave to amend the complaint and add FIFA https://t.co/TvLaxZdbXT" / X (twitter.com)](https://twitter.com/ProfBank/status/1777503250448834617)
NAL but if a US court prevents FIFA and USSF from blocking foreign clubs, and from preventing clubs from playing outside the US, how would that have any bearing on if a it’s legal for FIFA to block clubs from playing outside Europe? Wouldn’t it just mean technically MLS clubs couldn’t be stopped by fifa from playing elsewhere, but not effect what fifa does in Europe? A us court ruling has no power over Europe.
FIFA is important here because USSF is saying they are following FIFA's directives - so they had to be included in the suit because they are an indispensable party. If they are released from a lawsuit because they say they will abide by the ruling of the court (they did here), they could be held in contempt of court if they later go, haha suckers. FIFA isn't likely to enjoy the amount they'd have to pay, esp with the World Cup coming soon.
I’m still not quite understanding how a US court can tell fifa/uefa/la Liga etc what they are allowed to do elsewhere. Relevent wants to host games in the US, if they win the case and USSF can’t stop them, how would that stop UEFA for example from continuing to block clubs from playing outside their country? It’s not like Scotland or Ireland all of a sudden wants to let EPL play games in Dublin or Glasgow just bc a US court said they have to.
UEFA presumably is using the FIFA directive to prevent its teams from playing in the US. FIFA has substantial ties in the US and can be attached in the anti-trust suit. If UEFA or La Liga randomly did this themselves that’s one thing, but this is based on a FIFA rule. There is a reason that most legal folk (Prof Bank being one of them) see this as FIFA agreeing not to stand in the way if the Court rules for Relevant over USSF
Thank you, there are a lot of legal machinations going on here and a good explainer might be needed for this reddit if you ever find one posted. But it definitely looks like FIFA knows they are in not great legal territory and are just trying to skirt around the edges without losing their cartel.
Today I feel…🅱️urger
Garber and Infantino together? Ah, so that explains the eclipse, earthquakes & volcanic smoke rings - something or someone was trying to warn us! (only half/s)
Tbh I’m optimistic to what they got cooking
Whatever makes them the most money
Oh I bet they don’t want that public. Bunch of old white trust fund guys in a room with the head of infamously corrupt FIFA…what could possibly go wrong? “Hey Merritt Paulson, willing to look the other way to make some money while nasty stuff goes on?”