UEFA-FIFA football war spills into U.S. courts as European lawyers wield discovery 'superpower'

A powerful American legal tool is a weapon of choice in a brewing legal battle between two of the world's most powerful transnational sporting organizations.

Soccer might not be on the minds of Americans on a daily basis, but that won't stop the global corporate landscape from shifting under our feet as two behemoths of football governance wage world war on one another. Battles in that war erupted in three U.S. federal courts at the end of August.

RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0

UEFA, the governing body of football in Europe, filed ex parte applications in U.S. courts on August 27 with expansive discovery demands in anticipated litigation against world-governing FIFA. FIFA fought back last week with counter-filings as a would-be intervenor. Dirty laundry is close to spilling out, and the mechanism making it possible is a section of the U.S. code that bestows on foreign lawyers a "little-known superpower."

First, some context. Americans might remember from the waning days of the World Cup news cycle—and thus the waning days of Americans caring about soccer, despite the summer hype, and owing significantly to the self-inflicted wound of allowing profit-thirsty NBC to fragment Premier League matches across disparate network bundles, but that's another story—that FIFA chief Gianni Infantino, apparently intoxicated by the refined air inside his mega-millionaire bubble, proposed selling shares in the people's game to private investors. 

The proposal was akin to a company going public, except not at all public and, being above the laws of nations, hardly regulated. After schmoozing States-style, Infantino wanted to do his part to firm up the global wealth gap and to locate himself at its rich-ward extreme. No joke: Infantino's vision looks like it was modeled on President Trump's Board of Peace, with which Infantino's FIFA in fact formally partnered. Infantino would have set himself up as the head of a World Cup company, sidestepping the inconveniently quasi-democratic and term-limiting features of the FIFA presidency, and shaking down private investors and member associations for minority stakes.

There apparently is some limit to what even the supra-national, mega-rich can do, as Infantino's plan drew worldwide rebuke. Of course there was objection from watchdogs, such as Reboot FIFA, a campaign I signed on to that holds out hope for socially responsible sporting governance and issued a July statement condemning the Infantino plan. But tellingly, FIFA's member associations led the chorus of boos; UEFA pledged a boycott of FIFA. The limit might be when rich people step on the toes of other rich people, because UEFA is no stranger to the profit-engine-masquerading-as-for-the-commoner MO of professional football governance.

Longer memories will recall when Swiss police raided FIFA headquarters in 2015 at the behest of U.S. investigators, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a 47-count federal indictment in Brooklyn targeting top FIFA brass. Mighty FIFA President Sepp Blatter fell from grace, and it looked for a moment like democracy might be bigger than corporatocracy.

Infantino shows Trump the World Cup trophy in the Oval Office, 2025.
U.S. Government (public domain) photo from the White House

The moment didn't last. It only proved the old adage, cut the head off the hydra, and two more take its place. Infantino inaugurated a new era of next-level corruption. Of course, the U.S. prosecution had been motivated in part by the FIFA hijinks that saw the U.S. bid for the '22 World Cup founder in the face of Qatar's, let's say, "procurement." The '26 World Cup was our payoff. Washington meanwhile changed lanes to go all in on pay-to-play, and FIFA awarded President Trump his personally tailored Peace Prize. Plutocratic order was restored.

Infantino backed off of the private-investment plan. Yet hell hath no fury like a sporting cartel scorned. UEFA persists, demanding that FIFA oust Infantino and threatening legal action. 

Meanwhile, because there's a grain of truth to the offensive assumption that all rich people know each other, there's a U.S. connection to the FIFA scandal that runs even deeper than Trump and Infantino's mutual social grooming. New York-based Thrive Capital, a venture capital firm, was set to pour $4.2 billion into Infantino, Inc. And the co-founder and soul of Thrive Capital is Joshua Kushner.

You think I mistyped Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law who solved the Middle East. No. Josh is the other Bennet sister, an entirely different offspring of tax fraud, etc., convict Charles Kushner. Not that I'm judging a book by its author; a billionaire deserves a chance to write his own story.

Since the Infantino deal went up in glorious flames, Josh Kushner has tried to distance Thrive and himself from it. He says he never would have gotten involved had he known, and that he thought the deal would funnel more capital to promote socioeconomic development. Shoulda coulda woulda.

Well, UEFA wants to know more about that. Which is why its breathtaking range of documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York includes, very much inter alia, a proposed subpoena for the deposition of one Joshua Kushner.

RJ Peltz-Steele with Google Gemini CC0 1.0

The legal tool at the heart of the UEFA filings is 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The law opens up the discovery process of U.S. civil procedure for litigants in other countries to access records and to depose persons in the United States. Though section 1782 is implicated here, as it usually is, in connection with business disputes, it can be used just as well in ordinary tort litigation, from fraud to personal injury. 

This is important, because U.S. discovery is famously more expansive than production in other legal systems. Fittingly, U.S. civil procedure takes a sort of free-market approach to discovery, upon a truth-will-out philosophy. The system, articulated in the relevance-and-proportionality standard of Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, does not grant carte blanche for fishing expeditions, especially since 2015 amendment tried to rein it in a bit. But it goes a lot farther than the they-didn't-ask-so-don't-tell approach that is the norm in Europe.

Section 1782 on its face requires that (1) the domestic respondent can be found in the U.S. district in which discovery is sought, (2) the discovery is for use in a foreign or international tribunal, and (3) the section 1782 requester has an interest in the foreign proceeding. The statute won some notoriety in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split by deciding that arbitral panels are not eligible tribunals under the second element.

Section 1782 compliance by U.S. district courts is discretionary, not required, by the statute. So the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 set out factors to guide court discretion: (1) whether the domestic respondent is subject to the foreign proceeding, so discovery might rather be sought against the respondent there; (2) whether the foreign tribunal is receptive to U.S. court assistance; (3) whether the requester is trying to circumvent an intended limitation on discovery in the foreign system; and (4) whether the request is especially intrusive or burdensome. The third factor especially tends to be a contested point, and it is sometimes difficult for U.S. courts to find the line between a foreign limitation on discovery by design and the mere happenstance that the foreign discovery system is more conservative than the U.S. system.

In a 2020 empirical study, Penn Carey Law Professor Yanbai Andrea Wang concluded that section 1782 is an "increasingly pervasive practice that is transforming civil litigation worldwide." With 90% of ex parte 1782 requests granted, Wang found that the law raises due process concerns. Potential adversaries in the home litigation are not always given proper notice of their right to intervene in the United States and object to the discovery. In the instant matter at least, the 1782 petition is part of UEFA's public relations strategy. And FIFA had no trouble intervening in New York and mounting a public relations offensive of its own, accusing UEFA of a "smear campaign." 

Properly employed, section 1782 does open the door for a foreign actor to poke around in the business of an adversary or potential adversary, to bolster a legal theory back home, in a way that it could not without the U.S. hook. Sometimes what the requester can discover with the aid of U.S. law is valuable enough to shift public opinion or a case on its merits so significantly as to obviate or dispose of the matter back home. It's not a stretch to figure that UEFA hopes to find Infantino-Kushner correspondence so damning or embarrassing as to compel Infantino's ouster.

Watching the battles unfold in UEFA vs. FIFA, and In Re Union Des Associations Europeennes de Football (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 27, 2026) in particular, is a bit like being on a rowboat between battleships. But the stab at arrogant corporate impunity, even if thrust by a fellow titan, is nonetheless prone to induce a satisfying schadenfreude, especially if UEFA can bring Infantino down.

RIP, football transparencist Andrew Jennings. Your mouth would be watering.

Lichtman lecture unpacks politics of World Cup

Prof. Steven Lichtman spoke at UMass Law Thursday on "Soccer and American Exceptionalism: A Political Science Preview of World Cup 2026."

With the FIFA men's World Cup of soccer coming soon to the co-host United States, Prof. Lichtman took a peek behind the curtain at the once embattled yet seemingly unshameable enterprise of the world's biggest sporting event.

The American indictments and dramatic Zurich raid of the 2015 FIFA corruption scandal seem hardly to have slowed soccer's voracious appetite for cash. And sport is inseparable from politics. After all, FIFA President Gianni Infantino recently turned up at the inaugural meeting of U.S. President Donald Trump's Board of Peace. That struck me as an aptly symbolic testament to the corporatocratic nature of the Trumpian new world order. 

Prof. Lichtman spoke to the long history of World Cup politics, for example examining how reaction to the 1986 "Hand of God" goal manifested the angst and identities of both post-colonial Argentina and post-imperial England.

RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

A self-described "recovering lawyer," Prof. Lichtman is co-editor of Judging Free Speech: First Amendment Jurisprudence of U.S. Supreme Court Justices (2015). His other work has appeared in the Maryland Law Review, the Penn State Law Review, Vingtième Siècle Revue d'Histoire, the Pennsylvania Lawyer, and the newsletter of the Law and Courts section of the American Political Science Association. He earned his bachelor's and Ph.D. at Brandeis University, where he was a founder of the Boris' Kitchen Sketch Comedy troupe, and his J.D. from New York University.

Prof. Lichtman is a professor of political science at Shippensburg University. He serves also as executive director of the New England Political Science Association, and he is the incoming president of the Northeast Association of Pre-Law Advisers. His visit to UMass Law was co-sponsored by the International Law Students Association, the Law & Political Economy student organization, and the Office of the Dean.

Can't see sports, Oscars without channel-bundle subscription you don't want? Let regulators know

Gencraft

I filed a comment today with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the Disney-Fox-Warner sport streaming deal, and more generally, the anticompetitive practice of streaming television sales with channel-bundling leverage and opt-out subscriptions.

---

9 March 2024

Dear sir or madam at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice:

I understand you are scrutinizing the Disney-Fox-Warner sport bundling agreement, and you no doubt are sensitive to the situation in televised sport since the recent congressional hearings on sport media rights.

I draw your attention to two of this weekend's top offerings in sport and entertainment, because they are demonstrative of the problem now in the streaming industry—which is to say, for our times, in the television industry.

In sports, this weekend will see a meeting of the top two, closely matched soccer teams in the world contending for the Premier League championship, Manchester City and Liverpool.  NBC owns U.S. TV rights to Premier League matches in the United States.  NBC's practice is to break up matches horizontally, across its many media properties and contractual arrangements, compelling consumers to have to pay for multiple services to follow a single team in a single sport.

The practice is worse still: high-interest matches such as Sunday's are available only with the purchase of subscription bundles to channel packages consumers do not want.  Yes, the match is available from multiple electronic packages, but each is an expensive bundle: Fubo, Sling, DirecTV, and USA on cable television.  There is no one-off purchase option, nor even a one-channel purchase option.  The price of one month on one of these services far exceeds the market value of one match, or even four weekly matches.

This leveraged bundling, compelling consumers to buy what they do not want to get what they do want, especially in a billing format of opt-out subscription renewal, is an anticompetitive practice. It is ironic that Fubo has sued in private antitrust enforcement to stop the Disney-Fox-Warner agreement. Fubo's position seems to be that it wishes to profit in the vertical market from bundling leverage, but does not want providers to profit from the same model in a horizontal arrangement. In entertainment, the Oscars air on ABC Sunday night.  Like NBC in sports, ABC is making this popular program available only through bundled channel services such as Fubo, Sling, YouTube Live, Hulu Live, DirecTV, and ABC on cable television. Again, there is no one-off purchase option, nor even a one-channel purchase option. 

Again, consumers must buy access to content they do not want, again in a billing format of opt-out subscription renewal.  Media watchers such as Vulture advise consumers to purchase a television antenna to see the Oscars on ABC broadcast.  Is it not plain evidence of ABC's anticompetitive practice that in this day and age consumers would have to regress technologically to over-the-air broadcast to avoid paying for what they do not want?  Never mind the fact that old-fashioned broadcasters have substantially dampened their signal power, so that over-the-air reception is not feasible for many Americans, even on the fringes of large markets.

Disney-Fox-Warner argue that they must forge an agreement to meet consumer demand, so their agreement is in the public interest.  They are not wrong.  However, they are right only insofar as you already have permitted an anticompetitive market to exist.  For a player in this market to succeed, it must grow bigger, must exploit horizontal and vertical integration.

The fundamental problem is that the market already is dysfunctional.  Market actors are trying to replicate the cable model in a streaming world. But the cable model came about as a function of technological limitations, not market forces.

Is it not self evident that in a free market, consumers would be able to buy what they want and not buy what they do not want?

I entreat you not to approve of the creation of another integrated market player. At the same time, I entreat you, start taking a hard look at the anticompetitive practices that already are tolerated in existing horizontal and vertical integrations, especially through the strategy of channel-bundling leverage and opt-out subscription sales.

Sincerely,

Rick J. Peltz-Steele

(for information only:)
Attorney, Washington, D.C.
Chancellor Professor, UMass Law School

U.S. Soccer, FIFA lose antitrust appeal; defense shows short-sighted strategy to develop soccer in America

Cristiano Ronaldo plays for Real Madrid against Barcelona in 2011.
Jan S0L0 via Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

U.S. Soccer and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) will have to defend an antitrust action in federal court for refusing to permit a Spanish La Liga match on U.S. soil, the Second Circuit ruled in March. 

In 2017, world famous football (soccer) clubs Real Madrid and Barcelona faced off in an exhibition game in Miami. The match was fabulously lucrative for the commercial interests behind it, including organizer Relevant Sports, LLC, based in New York.

World sport likes the United States, because our infrastructure practically prints money. Americans, especially the top echelons of the wealthy, have been habitualized by our unregulated and often subsidized sport-and-entertainment monopolists to pay more than people elsewhere in the world to see live events, both directly for seats and indirectly in media rights.

Incidentally, that's the principal reason that bringing the FIFA (men's) World Cup back to North America in 2026 was not really a hard sell, notwithstanding modest public enthusiasm and the theater of the global bidding process. The 2026 co-hosts, the United States, Canada, and Mexico, likely did not even have to pay the half-billion dollars that Qatar apparently spent, mostly to FIFA executive committee members, in, uh, let's say, "incentives," in siting the 2022 World Cup (about my World-Cup-2022-contemporaneous lecture; Qatar on this blog): check out the investigative exclusive by Armin Rosen for Tablet (link from inset), published late last month, using U.S. court records in collateral matters.

Understandably, then, Relevant Sports wanted to maintain the momentum of the 2017 exhibition match. The company proposed that the Spanish La Liga subsequently might site a regular-season, full-stakes match in the United States. 

However, FIFA rules say that a match cannot be held in a country foreign to both sides without the approval of the football federation in the host country. U.S. Soccer said no.

Relevant sued, alleging that the rule improperly protects domestic football from being overshadowed, and therefore diminished in interest and income, by high-profile competitors. U.S. Soccer and FIFA defend the system on the merits under antitrust law, and, saliently in this intermediate disposition, argued that the FIFA "rule" is not really a rule, because FIFA doesn't make the decision for U.S. Soccer or La Liga. They're free to make their own decisions, notwithstanding potential adverse consequences, such as exclusion from international competition for players, teams, or federations that don't play ball.

The instant Second Circuit decision is limited. The court remanded the antitrust claim to proceed, recognizing that FIFA's rule is rule enough to represent the kind of concerted action in violation of antitrust law that Relevant alleges.

Earlier this week, I wrote about Cory Doctorow's enthusiasm, which I share, for the federal government's antitrust agenda—including the Justice Department investigation of Google. (I canceled my Google Nest Aware subscription upon the 25% rate hike. Google's not the only game in town. Yet.) U.S. Soccer's loss in the Second Circuit represents a judicial step in the same right direction.

I'm not an antitrust expert. But to my relatively lay eyes, the fact that the federal district court dismissed the case in 2021 on the faint theory that U.S. Soccer was not formally bound by FIFA's command demonstrates how appallingly far U.S. antitrust law has strayed from basic fair-market principles. Or maybe the court just didn't understand the governance system in world sport and its facility for subverting the laws of nations.

USWNT celebrates in times happier than this year's World Cup.
rachael.c.king via Flickr CC BY 2.0

The U.S. Soccer position in the litigation to me demonstrates furthermore a fundamental misunderstanding of what it will take to make football successful in America. American soccer advocates often wonder aloud why the sport seems to stall again and again, even after the men's World Cup in the United States in 1994 and the astonishing run of the U.S. Women's team in an unprecedented four World Cup titles.

To be sure, there are many, many reasons for the frustrating cycle of revving and stalling. But equally surely, one of those many reasons is the short-term greed of commercial actors that works a detriment to long-term development. 

I've written previously about this problem in the context of media rights. When NBC acquired the rights to English Premier League football, the broadcaster divvied up matches among its many media properties based on the popular appeal of each. NBC's strategy was to leverage interest in the league to sell separate subscriptions to multiple services: NBC, NBC Sports, (at one time, "NBC Gold,") Peacock, USA, Telemundo, Universo.

The network either didn't consider or doesn't care what that model looks like from the customer's perspective. Football in a place such as its home U.K. (at least before U.K. media companies such as Sky started merging with U.S. media giants and took sport away from the publicly minded BBC; that's another story) maintains a multi-generational foothold because supporters follow their teams.  

Divvying up the matches makes it impossible in the United States for a viewer to follow a team. Each week, one gets whatever match a selected service happens to carry, based on its level of market appeal.  If you subscribe to a middle-tier service and your team starts to lose, you might get more matches. If your team starts winning, and you start becoming more engaged, you find yourself suddenly deprived of matches.

That market behavior doesn't build a fan base. For American football or basketball, maybe there are enough viewers who will watch any game because they love the sport. But Americans don't yet love soccer that much. Sport-market development requires fostering two interrelated conditions at the same time: public enthusiasm for the sport, and public enthusiasm for a team. Neither can thrive without the other.

U.S. Soccer's refusal to permit La Liga to play a match on U.S. soil also is self-defeating, if for the converse strategic blindness. Both media rights usurpers and U.S. Soccer, focused on short-term profits, are dampening American enthusiasm by impeding U.S. viewers' access to the highest level of play in the world, in the Premier League and La Liga. While NBC's strategy deprives Americans of the opportunity to root for a team, the U.S. Soccer strategy deprives Americans of the opportunity to root for the sport.

Again, neither can thrive without the other.  U.S. Soccer is trying to protect Major League Soccer and the federation's underage and lower divisions. The federation reasons coldly that someone who buys a $500 La Liga ticket will skip five or ten $48 Tampa Bay Mutiny matches.

They're wrong. One of my U.S.-based family is a card-carrying member of the Toon Army, a dedicated supporter of Newcastle (U.K.) United FC. He traveled domestically to see Newcastle play an exhibition match in the United States this summer. Being a Newcastle supporter has made him a more, not less, enthusiastic supporter of his nearby D.C. United and the U.S. men's and women's national teams. With access to the matches of each, live and on TV, he's more likely to spend money on all of them.

Antitrust law is not a device to make commercial actors prioritize long-term interests over short. To the contrary, if NBC and U.S. Soccer put themselves out of business, that's a healthy outcome for the free market. But if antitrust inadvertently compels U.S. Soccer to up its game and compete for eyeballs by actually developing the sport, rather than constraining consumer choice, then that's an outcome I can get behind.

The case is Relevant Sports, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Federation, Inc. (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2023). U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr.., wrote the opinion of the unanimous panel that also comprised Chief Judge Livingston and Judge Lynch. In 2017's "El Clásico Miami," Barcelona bettered Real Madrid 3-2.

Can Arsenal supporter be impartial in football inquiry?

A curious story of lawyering ethics and football allegiance broke in mid-May, just after I went off contract with UMass Law and left the States for a chunk of the summer.

Manchester City Football Club (City, or MCFC), my team, won a historic "treble" over the summer, topping the Premier League, FA Cup, and UEFA Champions League.

Thomas Jefferson, me, and a City kit
at Hofstra University, 2016
Morgan Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

While City was on its spring tear, a modest shadow was cast by allegations of violations of "fair play" financial regulations in the Premier League for transactions dating to 2009 to 2018. From as much as is publicly known, the allegations focus on financial transparency requirements. Any ultimate finding of violation can have consequences going forward, ranging from fines to relegation from top-tier play.

City denies any misfeasance. In 2020, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) reversed a UEFA suspension of City for alleged violation of the financial regulations related to transactions from 2012 to 2016. The CAS decision was based principally on the exclusion of dated evidence, so the matter was not resolved on the merits. City then also denied any wrongdoing.

The present allegations, which themselves are reported to arise from a four-year investigation, have been referred to an independent commission. Its behind-closed-doors work will take a while. And City can be expected to litigate any adverse result.

The piece of the story that caused me to scratch my chin in May was the report that City had filed objection to the appointment of an Arsenal FC supporter, Murray Rosen KC, as chair of the independent commission.

Under rules of professional conduct in American law practice, being a fan of a sport team would not preclude a lawyer from representing a competitor. American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 1.7 focuses on conflicts in legal representation, not matters of social affiliation. Of course, the question comes down to the lawyer's ability to do the job "competent[ly]" and "diligent[ly]," so it's always possible for a lawyer to be compromised by sporting fervor. The best course is disclosure and client consent.

For a judge, ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 similarly, probably, would not demand a sport-fan judge's recusal from a matter involving a competitor. The requisite "personal bias or prejudice" is usually indicated by concrete evidence such as financial interest, familial affiliation, or former representation, not social preference.

More than lawyer ethics, the judicial canons give weight to public perception, testing expressly for objective perception of impartiality. But being a sport fan, absent economic investment, doesn't move that needle.

For example, in a fraud lawsuit settled confidentially five years ago, plaintiffs accused the New York Giants and players, including quarterback Eli Manning, of American football, of passing off memorabilia falsely as game worn. The plaintiffs asked New Jersey Superior Court Judge James J. DeLuca to recuse, because he was a Giants fan and, with his son, owned professional seat licenses—that's something, economically—to attend Giants games. DeLuca declined to recuse and pledged on the record his ability to remain impartial. All good, legal commentators opined. (E.g., NJ.com.)

JAMS guidelines for arbitrators are at least as permissive. Like the judicial canons, the guidelines look to both actual conflict and objective appearance of conflict. JAMS guidelines expressly condone "social or professional relationships with lawyers and members of other professions" as long as they do not "impair impartiality."

I don't know what ethics constraints pertain to Rosen, but I'm doubtful they are any more demanding. I also don't know, though, how deeply Rosen bleeds Arsenal red and white. City's filing is secret, so it's possible there's evidence of conflict that the public can't see.

Nothing in Rosen's public record raises a red flag. Based in London, he's a CAS-certified arbitrator and mediator. Any European professional, especially a Brit, and especially someone working in sport law, can be expected to favor a club or two in association football. Rosen was called to the bar in 1976. He's practiced media, sport, and art law and has served in a wide range of offices, even once chairman of the board of appeal of English Table Tennis.

A biography of Rosen at 4 Square Chambers, pre-dating the City matter, reported:

He is a strong believer in fairness and in the power and benefits of sport and has a keen appreciation of its social, political and financial aspects. He has participated in sport all his life, is a member of the MCC [I presume, Marylebone Cricket Club] and Arsenal FC, and still regularly plays real tennis and ping pong.

A 2019 biography at Herbert Smith Freehills mentioned in parentheses that Rosen "is an Arsenal season ticket holder." Arsenal of course was a contender for trophies City won in the end in its treble. But, at least upon what is publicly known, Arsenal has no direct interest in the financial regulatory matters, any more than another competing club.

The objection to Rosen might be part of a kitchen-sink litigation strategy, or, more likely, a public relations strategy. It's frustrating not being able to know the substance of the objection (or nearly anything about sport governance matters that wind up before CAS). On the public record, at least, the objection on ethics grounds doesn't seem to hold water.

In any event, the allegations against City do nothing to dampen my celebration of the treble! I wore my Erling Haaland kit to law school orientation just last week.

Sport researchers examine athlete dissent online

Spencer Peltz, my brother, has published a co-authorship, "Athletes’ Displaced Dissent on Social Media: Triggering Agents, Message Strategies, and User-Generated Responses," in Communication Quarterly from Taylor & Francis.

Here is the abstract:

Organizational dissent is ubiquitous in task-oriented groups, including sports teams and leagues. Yet, how and to whom that dissent is voiced and the responses to dissent can vary extensively. This study investigates how professional athletes enact displaced dissent and how the public reacts via sentiment analysis of Trevor Bauer’s YouTube channel. Findings identified 53 triggering agents that were consistent with those of subordinates in traditional workplaces. A novel triggering agent of external stakeholder management was also identified, which addressed Major League Baseball’s focus and consideration for its public, their interest in baseball, and relationships with athletes. Bauer expressed his dissent via 94 messages, mainly featuring a combination of rhetorically effective strategies and emotional release. Sentiment analysis of commenters’ 1,612 replies revealed rhetorically competent messages were either unassociated with or enhanced negative sentiment, but positive sentiment was created through entertainment (i.e. humor and pressure), inclusion (i.e. coalition building), and shared ideals (i.e. inspiration).

Gregory A. Cranmer, Brandon Boatwright, Jimmy Sanderson, and Angeline Scheinbaum co-authored the article with Peltz, who was the only contributor without a Ph.D. (I know the feeling.) Cranmer is a professor at Clemson University, where he was generously supportive of Peltz, who completed his bachelor's there last year.

Peltz is a digital marketing specialist at Forefront Networks in Austin, Texas.

Weapon of Putin's war, anti-gay law jars NHL in US

The NHL Chicago Blackhawks Sunday will host an annual Pride Night, but the team will not be wearing warm-up pride jerseys as intended, for fear of jeopardizing the safety of Russian players and their families.

Yesterday I got to talk about the story with Sasha-Ann Simons of Reset on WBEZ Chicago Public Radio. You can hear the segment online. HT @ ace producer Micah Yason.

WBEZ sports contributor Cheryl-Raye Stout related the facts and layered some nuance on the story. She expressed concern that Blackhawks staff had not consulted their three Russian players. In a Philadelphia Flyers case in January, a player refused to wear a pride jersey, citing his Russian Orthodox religion. It's unclear where the Russian Blackhawks stand.

No one disputes, though, that wearing the jerseys might be problematic for the players as a matter of Russian law and policy. In December 2022, Russia doubled down on the 10-year-old anti-gay law that was a source of controversy during the 2014 Sochi Olympics and the 2018 FIFA men's World Cup.

Under international pressure, Russia was permissive in enforcement of the law during those tournaments. But the failure of the International Olympic Committee and FIFA to reconcile their bold anti-discrimination rhetoric with host-country legal jeopardy for athletes and fans was a bad look and did no favors for human rights. More or less the same drama just played out again with the FIFA World Cup in the fall in Qatar, where homosexual acts are criminalized.

As enacted in 2013, the Russian law imposes civil fines on persons and business, and detention and deportation for foreigners, who engage in "propaganda" promoting same-sex relationships. Propaganda, though, really means any representation of social acceptability, including even the rainbow flag.

The law was enacted as a child protection measure and referred only to expression to children, though that scope encompassed mass media. In 2022, President Putin signed into law an amendment to broaden the law to cover expression to any person, child or adult, and to make plain that trans representations are prohibited, too.

Russian refugees march in New York in 2013.
Bosc d'Anjou via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Thus, a Russian athlete photographed wearing a pride jersey in America might face legal repercussions upon returning home. But the risk is really much greater than just civil fines, I explained to Simons on Reset. Informally, the law has signaled indifference by Russian authorities to brutal violence inflicted on LGBTQ persons, or even persons suspected of being LGBTQ, by vigilantes, if not law enforcement. An athlete abroad fairly might fear such reprisal upon returning home, or fear for her or his family meanwhile.

One thing I did not get to say on Reset, that I think is important, is that Putin's expansion of the anti-gay law is complementary of his war in Ukraine, because he perceives both as integral to preserving Russian identity against Western acculturation. Foreign Policy called the issues two sides of the same coin, and Putin has spoken of Western territorial aggression and social policy in the same breath. Doubling down on the anti-gay law in December was calculated as just another salvo in the war. That means, if Brittney Griner were not warning enough, that Putin is prepared to weaponize the law.

Robbie Rogers, 2013
Noah Salzman via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0

Our Reset discussion touched on other related matters, such as the Iranian side's protest at the Qatar World Cup, which I wrote about here in November and spoke about in Poland. I've written previously on the World Cup and sexual equality (with Jose Benavides), the World Cup and human rights, and football and development. 

A paucity of representation in top-flight world sport indicates that laws such as those in Russia and Qatar are hardly the only source of hostility toward LGBTQ athletes. In 2022, in the run-up to the men's World Cup, there was only one openly gay international footballer, and he didn't make the final cut for Australia's squad in Qatar. (There are openly lesbian players in women's world football.)

A good read in this area is Coming Out to Play (2014), an autobiography by Robbie Rogers, co-authored with Eric Marcus. An American and a Christian, Rogers played for Leeds United in the UK and for the U.S. Men's National Team. In 2013, he publicly disclosed that he is gay at the same time he announced his retirement from football, though he returned to the sport to play for four more years with the LA Galaxy in the U.S. MLS.

Politics complicates football: Sympathy for ... Iran

As advertised, last week in Kraków, Poland, I had the great privilege to talk law, development, and the FIFA World Cup, with the group stage under way in Qatar.

Students and faculty of the American Law Scientific Circle (KNPA) and American Law Program at Jagiellonian University (Koło Naukowe Prawa Amerykańskiego TBSP UJ and Szkoła Prawa Amerykańskiego UJ), in collaboration with the Columbus Law School at the Catholic University of America, generously hosted me.  The talk kicked off a KNPA lecture series on "Law and Sustainability." My especial thanks to KNPA President Zuzanna Maszniew and her leadership team.

Photo © Zuzanna Maszniew, used with permission.

I was no John Oliver, to be sure, but I hope I stimulated thinking about the Gordian Knot of sport and politics and its implications for the Middle East and North Africa's place at the table.

Today, November 29, the United States will round out its play in the group stage in Qatar with a match against Iran, simultaneously with a high stakes stand-off between England and Wales. It's a big day, football fans.

Meanwhile, coming home to the States this week, I've been disappointed that Americans are not more in tune with the fascinating stories of geopolitics that are unfolding under the sporting tents of the Qatar World Cup. I admit, what's happening now in China dangles meritorious distraction. But with the USMNT facing Iran today, I want to mention one of the stories from Qatar that has gripped me.

In Iran's opening match with England last week, Iranian footballers refused to sing their own national anthem (BBC).  Stony faced, the players apparently chose to stand in silent solidarity with rights protestors against the government at home (N.Y. Times). Subsequently, Iranian authorities arrested a former national-team footballer known for occasional anti-regime sentiments (Guardian). At Iran's second match, the lads toed the line.

The anthem stunt was extraordinarily courageous. The players had to have known the disgrace they brought on the regime would have consequences when they go home, if not sooner.

Iranian footballers in 2018.
Mahdi Zare/Fars News Agency via Wikimedia Commons CC BY 4.0

More, though, I was struck by the reminder that people and their governments are not the same thing.

I'm a reasonably bright person, as people go, and I've seen a lot of the world. I come from an immigrant family myself. I grew up with a dear Iranian friend. Her stepmother taught me how to make tahchin, and her dad eagerly gave me his own well worn copy of All the Shah's Men. I shouldn't need to be reminded that people are just people, much the same around the world, just trying to make the best of things and find some joy where we can; and that it's wrong to ascribe the Machiavellian motives of states, whether others or our own, to their citizens. The protests now in China say the same.

Yet, I admit, I had followed the USMNT into the World Cup with something of a Cold War mentality, maybe because of the era when I grew up. Yellow ribbons, burning effigies, and "Death to America" chants all bounce around my long-term memory. I was determined that we and our Group B compatriots from England and Wales should beat Iran to make some kind of political point. A Miracle on Ice or Rocky IV situation.

The Iranian men's demonstration unsettled my unconscious prejudice. As a result, a part of me has been pulling for Iran in their last matches, even while, still, I had to favor the England squad, which features some of my beloved Manchester City stars, and Wales, which invokes Lasso-esque Wrexham affections. And even while, of course, I support my home USMNT today, there will be a part of me that wants to see the Iranian side make a pride-worthy showing.

With FIFA World Cup under way in Qatar, law students study sport and soft power, law and development

I'll be talking law, development, and the World Cup today in Kraków, Poland.

Thanks to the American Law Scientific Circle (KNPA) and American Law Program at Jagiellonian University (Koło Naukowe Prawa Amerykańskiego TBSP UJ and Szkoła Prawa Amerykańskiego UJ), in collaboration with the Columbus Law School at the Catholic University of America, for hosting me. This talk kicks off a KNPA lecture series on "Law and Sustainability" and begins at 3 p.m. CET at Pałac Larischa 203, Bracka 12.

I'll share some of the subject matter later.  Too much football to watch!

Qatar World Cup opens Sunday; meanwhile, Netflix series stokes embers of FIFA corruption scandal

I visited CONMEBOL HQ in Asunción, Paraguay, in October.
The South American angle on the FIFA corruption scandal
was engagingly fictionalized in El Presidente in 2020.
(Photo by RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.)

The sport world is abuzz over the Netflix documentary series, FIFA Uncovered, dropped November 9, just weeks before the FIFA World Cup opener in Qatar.

Many in Qatar are crying foul by filmmaker Miles Coleman for dredging up the ugliness of the FIFA corruption scandal, the focus of this docuseries, right now. But in an interview with renowned MENA scholar James Dorsey, Coleman, who created This Is Football for Amazon Prime in 2019, said he had no motive other than historical documentation. The timing of the release, Coleman said, is to bring football fans up to speed on the facts, so they can have informed conversations around the Qatar World Cup.

FIFA was rocked by scandal in 2015 when investigators led by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) arrested top officials in Zurich and issued an avalanche of indictments. It was revealed then that corruption practically poisoned every part of world football governance, especially the bidding process for the world's top sporting event and its 2010 award to Russia for 2018 and Qatar for 2022.

Qatar narrowly edged out a bid from the United States in 2010, and disgraced FIFA President Sepp Blatter and his allies accused the United States of spite. Purportedly relieved of corrupt process, FIFA in 2018 awarded the 2026 World Cup to the joint bid of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

When issues remain controverted, the docuseries presents all voices, Coleman told Dorsey. Indeed, the interviews are what makes the series worthwhile. Most of the story has been told already and well; I read and reviewed a number of books on the subject in the first pandemic summer. The docuseries, though, includes interviews with just about every key player, including Blatter himself, as well as Qatar bid chief H.E. Hassan Al Thawadi; "Qatar whistleblower" Phaedra Al-Majid, featured recently on Norwegian television; and Mary Lynn Blanks, romantic partner of corrupted American football official Chuck Blazer, who died in 2017.

Among the revelations, or at least confirmed suspicions, arising from the docuseries interviews is the fact, borne out by evidence besides his own testimony, that Blatter favored the United States rather than Qatar to host the 2022 World Cup. For all Blatter's failings, he was outmaneuvered by the colossal corruption machine that he helped to create. African Football Confederation President Issa Hayatou, a rival of Blatter's within FIFA, was key to securing the Qatari win. Hayatou was joined in his efforts by Jack Warner, president of the North, Central America and Caribbean Association, whose defection infuriated Blazer.

On Wednesday next week, November 23, at Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland, I will lead a discussion, "Law, Development, and the World Cup."  The program, in English, begins at 3 p.m. local time at Pałac Larischa 203, Bracka 12.

The World Cup opens Sunday night in Doha, Nov. 20, at 1100 US EST/1600 GMT, when Qatar hosts Ecuador in Group A. The United States MNT plays its Group B opener against Wales on Monday, Nov. 21, at 1400 US EST/1900 GMT. Poland plays its Group C opener against Mexico on Tuesday, Nov. 22, at 1100 US EST/1600 GMT/1700 CET.

Hat tip to Alessandro Balbo Forero, an alum of my Comparative Law class who wrote his final paper on football and Brexit, for alerting me to the drop of FIFA Uncovered. He's an Arsenal supporter, but nobody's perfect.

Here is the trailer for FIFA Uncovered:

And here is the Dorsey interview of Coleman:

'Marketplace' features book, film, Wisconsin law class on wild risks at shuttered N.J. water park

Action Park fun in 1994
(Joe Shlabotnik CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

Marketplace today features a torts course about accident risk and liability at a water park.

The 2020 HBO documentary Class Action Park (2020) (trailer) told the story of Action Park, a New Jersey theme park in the 1980s and 1990s.  Here is a compelling excerpt of the film's pitch:

It was known as a lawless land, ruled by drunk teenage employees and frequented by even drunker teenage guests. The rides were experimental and illogical, and seemed to ignore even the most basic notions of physics or common sense—not to mention safety.

Let’s put it this way: There was an enclosed tube waterslide that went in a complete loop—and that wasn’t even close to the most dangerous ride at the park.

Lying somewhere between Lord of the Flies and a Saw movie, Action Park is remembered as a place so insane and treacherous that, decades later, anybody who ever stepped foot in it is left wondering whether their memories could possibly be true. It became a nearly perfect breeding ground for urban legends and myths.

And then there was the park’s founder: A genius madman who was willing to break any rule to bring his vision to life, including the creation of a fake insurance company in the Cayman Islands to circumvent insurance regulations. As cunning as he was criminal, Action Park became the pure expression of his particular worldview, which valued self-responsibility above all else—including basic safety measures and physically practical rides.

There is a book, too: Action Park (2020) by Andy Mulvihill and Jake Rossen.  Andy Mulvilhill is the son of the "genius madman," Gene, who died in 2012. Andy wrote a narrative about his father in Esquire in 2020.

Attorney Bill Childs, adjunct professor at Mitchell Hamline Law School and assistant general counsel at 3M, has taught a course about Action Park, Recreation and Risk: no doubt an informative exploration of how the tort system is supposed to regulate social and economic activity and how its dysfunctions often cause it to fail. For the Marketplace story, David Brancaccio interviewed Professor Childs.

I start Torts I each fall with consideration of the relationship between the thriving market in extreme supports in New Zealand and the suspension of tort litigation in favor of the nation's administrative accident compensation system. N.Z. bungee-jump entrepreneur A.J. Hackett told Australian Broadcasting in 2012 that he closed his Las Vegas franchise because of frivolous litigation. I have doubts about the frivolity of the claims, but there's no doubt that the threat of tort litigation in the United States calls on business models to moderate risk, for better and for worse, more than they might have to in other countries. In the same vein, I am keen myself to learn more about what went wrong or right in claims arising at Action Park.

Theme parks, because they aim to entertain the public at large, not especial risk takers, do not trigger the rare preservation of implied-assumption-of-risk doctrine (IAOR) that pertains in sport, sometimes to deprive even amateur athletes of a cause of action. In U.S. jurisdictions today, IAOR is largely superseded by the adoption of comparative fault, a partial defense. But athletes knowingly engage in a suspension of the social contract, voluntarily undertaking a degree of risk that the general public ordinarily does not.  So some jurisdictions preserve IAOR for that occasion.

The inapplicability of IAOR to Action Park risk is on my mind because of a recent article in which Toronto attorney Will Keele and Windsor law student Keanin Parish revisited a 1993 case, Hall v. Hebert, in which the Supreme Court of Canada preserved IAOR in a non-sporting context. After "equally drunk" Hall and Hebert's Pontiac "muscle car" dropped 30 feet into a ditch in 1986, Hall sued Hebert for having let him drive. On those facts, the court favored volenti, a functional equivalent of IAOR, as a complete defense over comparative fault as only partial defense. In other words, Hall had it coming. Keele and Parish opined that that conclusion squares with later cases in the 21st century that preserved IAOR as a defense against injury claims arising in golf and hockey.

The extremity of risk at Action Park shows that the line is not so bright between IAOR preservation for the plaintiff who consents to risk and the abolition of IAOR for the plaintiff who engages with risk unreasonably—or, I might say, between informal sport and general-public thrill-seeking. Were Action Park's "drunker teenage guests" so clearly different from Hall? The salient distinction arises less in the plaintiff's subjective consent and more in the nature of the risk known to arise from the activity the plaintiff undertakes. A car crash is a known hazard of drunk driving, but even a drunk theme park rider does not expect the ride to be operated unsafely—usually. At some point—"memories could possibly be true"?—the distinction runs out. 

I have not had an HBO subscription for a while, but if we sign up later this month for House of the Dragon, I'll check out Class Action Park, too.

NBC resists TV free market, overcharges U.S. viewers: PL football costs $20 in Canada, $70 in United States

Each year, I become freshly enraged at the cost of seeing Premier League football in the United States, a ready example of antitrust non-enforcement in the communication sector.

The Sporting News had the audacity, or stupidity?, to describe NBC carriage of PL matches in the United States as a "luxury." I guess it is, a luxury only the rich can afford. To follow one's team, one must, at minimum, subscribe to NBC partner FuboTV for $70 per month. Access via FuboTV costs just US$20 per month in Canada.

The tangled cross-ownerships of what used to be broadcast TV are indicative of the dearth of consumer protection in the area. NBC "competitor" CBS (Viacom) owns a stake in FuboTV. The legacy broadcasters are using their weight in contracting power to lock down content in channel consolidators that emulate the old cable TV business model, by which consumers were compelled to overpay for a sliver of content in a library they didn't want. Hardly the free market promise of streaming.

But the FCC long ago left the helm unmanned on consumer protection when broadcasting gave way to cable. And the FTC and DOJ have had little interest in expanding their purview in times of corporate-captured governance. As usual, the United States purports to model free market capitalism in an oligopolized market that is anything but.

FuboTV in Canada at left, United States at right.
The package in Canada has fewer channels,
but if PL is all you want, that's not an option.

Qatar drops beIN sport piracy claim as World Cup nears

Sideline interview with beIN
(Ronnie Macdonald CC BY 2.0 via Flickr)

Qatar withdrew its complaint in April in the World Trade Organization against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) over piracy of Qatari beIN Media Group sport broadcasts.

I wrote about this dispute in May 2020. A pirate outfit cheekily called "beOutQ" was rebroadcasting beIN content in the KSA without a copyright license. Riyadh disclaimed responsibility. But there was little doubt that the Saudis at least looked the other way, if not sponsored the piracy, as the two nations were locked in a tense diplomatic standoff and Qatar was isolated by a regional embargo. Read more background from James Dorsey.

Now World Cup 2022 in Qatar is focusing global attention on the Middle East. Neither nation stands to gain from negative publicity, least of all heightened attention to human rights issues (see Dorsey this week), so Qatar and the KSA are trying to work past their differences. They both joined a statement of the Gulf Cooperation Council signed at al-Ula after a summit in January 2021 (Middle East Institute analysis), and they have been working through the implications since. BeIN has broadcast rights to the World Cup, so setting to rest that piece of the dispute made the agenda.

Alyssa Aquino wrote further analysis of the Qatari withdrawal of the WTO complaint for Law 360 in April. The matter in the WTO was No. WT/DS567/11 (terminated Apr. 25, 2022).

Sheriff FC tells two tales, because that's football, life

Selfie, today (RJ Peltz-Steele CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

The Sheriff Football Club from Tiraspol in Transnistria, Moldova, defeated western European powerhouse Real Madrid, at home at the Bernabeu, in Champions League football last week.

Coincidentally, I've lately been sporting my "Sheriff" ball cap.  I wrote about Transnistria after my visit there, and to Sheriff's 12,000-seat stadium in Tiraspol, two years ago: "Breakaway state of Transnistria might model new Russian sphere of influence" (Dec. 16, 2019).

It's interesting to see how media outlets describe Sheriff's geographic home.  Most I've seen say "Moldova," which, I guess, is what you find if you look at a political map.  Wikipedia describes Tiraspol as "the capital of Transnistria, a breakaway state in Moldova."  Only in an Al Jazeera main headline did I see exclusive mention of Transnistria.  The subhede then started, "Football club from a pro-Russian separatist enclave in Moldova."

After I crossed into Transnistria and showed my papers to the heavily armed border guards to get my 24-hour visa in a flurry of stamps, I didn't feel like I was still in Moldova.

Most media outlets have not picked up the political thread on the upset story.  In one exception, Sheriff's road to Champions League glory is well contextualized by Gab Marcotti for ESPN FC.  He observed that none of the Sheriff players are Moldovan or Transnistrian—but before one "get[s] high and mighty about national identity, please consider that at the final whistle, there were exactly zero Spaniards on the pitch."

Is the Sheriff-over-Real-Madrid story "a 'fairy tale' or a sad reflection"? Marcotti wondered.  On the one hand, there is the peculiar joy of football as sometimes, or seeming, social leveler:

Let it be a reminder that ordinary players, on an ordinary Tuesday night, can walk into the temple of football and knock it down, like Samson back in the day. That's part of the appeal of this sport. It's low-scoring, it's mano-a-mano, and the gap between superstars and extras may be huge over time, but on any given day, it can be tiny and anything can happen.  

Marcotti drew on a Twitter thread from near-Tiraspol-born, ethnically Russian, now Baltimore, Md.-based sportswriter Slava Malamud to illustrate the other hand:

[Sheriff] have been Moldovan champions in 19 of the past 21 years, they have the country's only modern stadium and they're bankrolled by the Sheriff corporation, a conglomerate that includes Transnistria's only supermarket chain, gas station chain, telephone network, TV channels, publishing house and distillery. The owners have close ties to the local government, which, in turn, is funded and protected by Russia. This isn't just a company team; it's a company town in the company enclave of Transnistria, and you can't shake the feeling that this is what it takes for "fairy tales" like this to take place in the modern game.

Football is metaphor.  What happens on the pitch, especially when recounted by capable journalists, is contradiction, because contradiction is football, and football is life.  Sheriff is fairy tale and sad reflection.  In the same way that pride and frustration are fast friends.

Undefeated in the group stage, Sheriff now leads UEFA Champions League Group D with wins over Real Madrid and Ukraine's Shakhtar Donetsk.  Sheriff will face Inter Milan, in Milan, on October 19, again putting the fairy tale to the test.

(Below, BT Sport tweet from Sheriff's August win over Dinamo Zagreb to reach the Champions League (retweeted by Malamud)).

History is made! 🇲🇩

Sheriff Tiraspol become the first Moldovan side to EVER qualify for the Champions League group stage! 👏#UCL pic.twitter.com/JxkJtOKYOH

— Football on BT Sport (@btsportfootball) August 25, 2021

American soccer traces roots to textile mills

In the first pandemic summer, I watched and adored the limited TV series, The English Game, which depicted the birth of modern soccer, or association football, in the context of industrialization and labor organization in the 19th century.

Fall River Rovers, 1917

For Boston.com, sports writer Hayden Bird now reveals a similar heritage for U.S. soccer in the communities of once abundant mills in my current home region, eastern Rhode Island and the Massachusetts south coast.  Bird explains in the piece:

[T]he early 20th century boom in American soccer is intertwined with the textile industry. The exponential growth of mills in the late 19th century (following the decline of the whaling industry) led to large scale immigration as skilled laborers were funneled in....

Answering the call were people who already had textile experience: those from Lancashire and the valley of Clyde. These regions, as historian Roger Allaway points out, “in addition to being the heart of the English textile industry also was the area of England in which association football [soccer] had most taken root among working class people in those same years."

And because of this, "textiles brought immigration and immigration brought football."

Bird's coverage embedded this video, which YouTuber soccermavn describes as "[p]erhaps the oldest extant professional U.S. soccer footage—snippets from the 1924 U.S. Open Cup final, played on March 30, 1924" in St. Louis, where the Vesper Buick hosted the Fall River, Mass., Marksmen.  The Marksmen prevailed 4-2.

The article is Hayden Bird, American Menace: When Fall River Ruled U.S. Soccer, Boston.com (June 21, 2018).  Hat tip @voteunion (Aaron Wazlavek), J.D.  See also Dan Vaughn, The Ghosts of Fall River, Protagonist Soccer (Oct. 29, 2018).