What They're Saying: Letter from Crossfire to FIFA

“USSF and MLS appear to behave in a conspiratorial manner, acting side-by-side to deny U.S. youth soccer clubs any training compensation and solidarity fees because they are afraid that the dam will burst and MLS will have to pay training compensation. Although not specifically relevant to the relief that Crossfire and the U.S. youth soccer clubs are seeking here, the Executive Committee may wish to explore the seemingly improper relationship between USSF and MLS shown here. The facts are clear that the two are closely aligned in an anticompetitive manner in the U.S.”

-- Letter from Development Academy club Crossfire to FIFA, asking it to address the alleged interference of MLS and U.S. Soccer into the Seattle area club receiving FIFA-mandated payment of solidarity contributions from the sale of former Crossfire youth player DeAndre Yedlin by the Seattle Sounders to Tottenham. (SI.com)
3 comments about "What They're Saying: Letter from Crossfire to FIFA".
  1. Scott Johnson, June 30, 2015 at 2:54 a.m.

    It's my understanding that Crossfire doesn't pay players (though it does subsidize their training)--something that it touts as a feature, in helping college hopefuls maintain their shamateur status. I tend to be of the opinion that unless a club is PAYING a player, it's got no right to demand solidarity payments or any similar fee. (And certainly if the player is paying the club, the club has no business demanding such...)

  2. R2 Dad, July 1, 2015 at 1:42 a.m.

    I agree, Scott. But MLS should be paying some entities for the development work. Why not the leagues the developing clubs play in? After all, the competitive environment is important. MLS should establish a roadmap before the lawyers warp the process and vacuum up all the cash.

  3. Raymond Weigand, July 1, 2015 at 1:14 p.m.

    A full reading of the SI article is quite interesting. I am probably missing the point - it seems that the legal issue is that the Hotspur designated a payment directly to the club - and this payment was diverted by the MLS / USSF shared leadership. The MLS seems to be getting what they want (in this case) and the USSF is enforcing them under cover of a previous court opinion related to the one ownership decision. Probably this will be settled before it ever reaches a court as the MLS / USSF shared management would not want a P.R. disaster running concurrently with the FIFA investigation.

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications