The players claim that the league is really not a unitary organization (which would make it immune from antitrust attack [click here], but rather one that exercises the set up of a more traditional league. Specifically, the players allege that MLS imposes salary caps, controls group licensing rights in merchandising, and limits free agent players from negotiating with teams within the league, according to the Boston Globe.

Many readers know where I stand on this type of issue [click here]. Such a legal strategy, successfully done by the NFL Players Association (which is funding this suit), was done against a wealthy and established league. MLS, on the other hand, is trying to maintain and expand its presence. A jury trial, and expected appeals could cost both sides invaluable time and money (if the players are successful, the damages are tripled against the league). One MLS owner said that the outcome "could be the end of professional soccer in this country."

The Washington Times quotes MLS Players Association President John Kerr Sr. as saying that the MLS players "are fighting for the same rights that people like Curt Flood fought for 30 years ago (for Major League Baseball free agency). There are lots of revenues that the players clearly derive and deserve to access"

The owners "called off" the season after a group of players filed a lawsuit, which is still pending, charging that the owners "had illegally joined to deprive players of medical benefits, a pension plan and the right to free agency." But a majority of the players rejected the suit and decided to go back to the bargaining table instead.

According to the Albany Times Union, the owners recommitted to playing this season after 378 players gave their signed authorization to a union called the AFL Players' Organizing Committee [AFLPOC]. Both sides are seeking to conclude an interim agreement before beginning of this season.

Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who has made a specialty out of filing such antitrust suits on behalf of professional athletes, castigated the move.  "This sham union gives [the league] no antitrust immunity. They're still standing naked with this fig leaf of a phony union. It's a management-dominated and coerced union."

But according to the Arizona Republic, a representative of the new union said, "The lawsuit could be held up in federal court for eight or nine years and the players may get $8,000 or $9,000 apiece. That's not worth losing a season over." Or a league, for that matter.

My sentiments exactly. And just ask the Major League Soccer players about that possibility.