Relevent Sports v. U.S. Soccer Federation, 61 F.4th 299

FIFA is a private membership association; national associations (e.g., USSF) are members and bind their leagues and teams to FIFA rules; noncompliance can trigger sanctions.
In October 2018 the FIFA Council adopted a policy prohibiting sanctioning of official season games outside participants’ home territory (the "2018 Policy").
Relevent Sports alleges the 2018 Policy is a horizontal geographic market‑division agreement that prevented leagues (e.g., La Liga) from staging official matches in the U.S., injuring competition and Relevent’s business.
Relevent sued USSF (then added FIFA), alleging violations of §1 of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act; the district court dismissed for failure to plead an antecedent "agreement to agree" among horizontal competitors.
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that promulgation of a binding association rule governing members’ separate businesses can be direct evidence of concerted action under §1 without pleading a prior agreement to agree.
The court also held at the pleading stage that FIFA is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York based on alleged agency and contacts through USSF.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an association’s adoption of a rule itself can be direct evidence of §1 concerted action	The 2018 Policy, as adopted, is the horizontal agreement restricting competition	Must allege an antecedent "agreement to agree" (vote‑trading or similar) among horizontal competitors to adopt the rule	Promulgation of a binding rule that governs members’ businesses is direct evidence of concerted action; no separate antecedent agreement required
Personal jurisdiction over FIFA in New York	FIFA is subject via USSF acting as its agent and FIFA’s New York contacts	FIFA is not subject to New York jurisdiction	NY long‑arm and due‑process satisfied at pleading stage based on alleged USSF agency/contacts with NY
Whether leagues/teams are the relevant competitors though not FIFA members	Leagues/teams are bound through national associations and are head‑to‑head competitors in local markets	Leagues/teams are not FIFA members and national associations are not horizontal competitors	Court accepts plausible allegations that associations bind leagues/teams and the policy restrains interleague competition
Whether the 2018 Policy was binding vs. nonbinding "sporting principle"	The complaint alleges the FIFA Council adopted a formal, enforceable policy with sanctions for noncompliance	Defendants contend it was a nonbinding sporting principle	At pleading stage, allegations plausibly show the policy was formal and enforceable, so treated as binding

North Am. Soccer League v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, 883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) (adoption of association standards can be direct evidence of §1 concerted action when the rule itself is the challenged restraint)
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945) (association rules that restrict members' independent business conduct can constitute an agreement in restraint of trade)
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010) (distinguishing independent vs. concerted conduct by association and members)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for alleging agreement or conspiracy)
United States v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) (requiring plausible factual material to show a conscious commitment to a common scheme)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (association policies can be horizontal restraints among competitors)
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) (recognizing admitted horizontal restraints imposed by association governance)
AD/SAT, Div. of Skylight, Inc. v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 1999) (distinguishing challenges to specific association rules from broader conspiracy allegations)