Dad suing over son's lack of playing time on lacrosse teams

Interesting lawsuit.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25187134/dad-suing-over-sons-lack-of-playing-time-on-lacrosse-field

I wish them the best of luck in this suit. There are kids and parents out there being taken avantage of. Coaches telling parents and kids before they sign that contract saying they can earn play time by the kids efforts in practice. Its bs and a gross misrepresentation.

Lax is much different than soccer.  Only stuck one year in soccer.  In lax, you have to play for your home area...or get a one time release to play for another.  Since the kid went to private school he got the release...and played for his school, per lax rules he had to play rest of youth career there.  Only a one time release and you are stuck, which gives coach ultimate power.  On the surface it seems silly..and in soccer I would agree.  In lax he could have a case.

In terms of soccer though, it's normally a minimum of $2500 to join+ uniform$$ + travel$$ and hotel$$ + gas$$ + tourney$$ + additional training$$..
Just saying it adds up even in the term it's only a year. Also depends on the year, because some years of playing and being seen are more important than others.

Lesson learned= don't bench the lawyer's kid

might win the lawsuit but good luck finding another coach to accept the kid on the roster. What next? Dad will need to sue to get his kid on ANY team after this.

Always figured that EARNING playing time was apart of any sport. maybe not anymore.

One interesting thing is that the article references the RICO act; that this lawsuit was filed under RICO. FWIW, RICO was the main charge that was used in the 80s-90s to bust the major drug lords and crime families in the USA. I think it involves racketeering and organized criminal activity. how this is relevant to youth sports will be interesting.

RICO actually stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. So the corrupt organization could apply.

I don't think anyone would argue about earning playing time, that what we all sign up for. however, if you dont think there is political and/or personal reasons why SOME coaches give playing time, look closely. It happens a lot more than you think and a lot more than it should when you are paying for a service.

Till-I-Collapse wrote:RICO actually stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  So the corrupt organization could apply.  

I don't think anyone would argue about earning playing time, that what we all sign up for. however, if you dont think there is political and/or personal reasons why SOME coaches give playing time, look closely.  It happens a lot more than you think and a lot more than it should when you are paying for a service.

If lawyer/dad can prove that the coach was giving preferential treatment to players who played for the "for pay" team, then he actually has a pretty strong case. It will be pretty difficult to prove unless you can show a pattern or you have some documentation or other evidence...but showing that the players who paid got the lion's share of play time is difficult and defensible if they were clearly better. The sticker is that if the kids have no options but to play for THAT coach and team...and they divided up territory to charge what they wanted and basically extort, then he can prove collusion.

Headline is a little deceiving...Can't invoke Rico for a lack of playing time, but the words extortion, fraud make it relevant. Sounds like this lacrosse academy was playing it fast and loose with the rules.

Telling players they need attend particular camps to be able to participate in high school sports is unseemly. If the academy and the school are somehow connected or is a shared interest of the defendants... They are are at least guilty of the appearance of impropriety.

Personally, I strongly dislike it when high school coaches of any sport strongly recommend or refer student athletes to private individuals for paid activities.

Packrabbit wrote:Headline is a little deceiving...Can't invoke Rico for a lack of playing time, but the words extortion, fraud make it relevant. Sounds like this lacrosse academy was playing it fast and loose with the rules.

Telling players they need attend particular camps to be able to participate in high school sports is unseemly. If the academy and the school are somehow connected or is a shared interest of the defendants... They are are at least guilty of the appearance of impropriety.

Personally, I strongly dislike it when high school coaches of any sport strongly recommend or refer student athletes to private individuals for paid activities.

+1 Collusion is worse when it's public and nonprofit organizations doing it.

Nonprofit????

MyBall wrote:Lesson learned= don't bench the lawyer's kid

Winning!

One issue that'll likely come up is that lacrosse isn't a UIL-sanctioned sport, so some of the normal high school rules don't apply. i don't know exactly, but I would assume that the HS lacrosse coach can also coach the same group of players in camps and club lacrosse, which is against UIL rules. So those "references" to participate in camps/clinics are legal.

Another thing I can think that would be hard to prove is which player is considered "better". No judge can determine that and a parent would be biased on that. Any expert witness that would be called to testify still couldn't evaluate based on that team's coach's philosophy, or what skills he values more or less than another. The coach can always say "I value these qualities that other players have and this particular player doesn't have them."

oldboot wrote:Nonprofit????

Quick internet search shows ECNL, NTX Soccer, LHGCL are 501(c)3 tax exempt organizations. I assume most sports Organizations are.

http://www.eliteclubsnationalleague.com/overview/index_E.html
http://www.ntxsoccer.org/about/missionstatement.aspx
http://501c3lookup.org/lake_highlands_girls_classic_league/

Just because an entity has been created as "not for profit" doesn't mean that the people that create and run it don't make any money. Although the company can't distribute a profit at the end of the year, it can pay hefty salaries.  Anyway, I think the LAX clubs mentioned in the article are actually "for profit".