Sorting out hurdles facing Founders Cup, NPSL
Confusion abounds over the circumstances surrounding the Founders Cup. The NPSL-aligned professional “league” is expected to kickoff in August, but per sources and Chris Kivlehan’s reporting, some issues remain. This article attempts to dive into those issues.
These issues include problems getting group insurance for players, potential member disagreements and/or defections and concerns over sanctioning.
Group Insurance
As Soc Takes reported, NPSL board members convened on June 4 to discuss potential solutions to the player insurance issue. At the core of this issue is that the league has found it difficult to get group insurance rates for a mix of professional and amateur players.
This includes disparate rules for workers compensation which vary from state to state. Using this resource, we examined the state requirements of each team currently slated to be a Founders Cup participant:
Tennessee: Required, but independent contractors (IC) may be exempt. Average cost: $1.13/$100 salary
New York: Required, including part-time employees and IC. Average cost: $0.98/$100 salary
Arizona: Required, but IC exemptions exist. Average cost: $0.95/$100 salary
California: Required. Average cost: $1.85/$100 salary
Florida: Required. Average cost: $1.32/$100 salary
Michigan: Slightly more complicated, but from my reading of it, required for NPSL clubs. Average cost: $1.77/$100 salary
Wisconsin: Required. Average cost: $0.99/$100 salary
(Caveats: Most of these state associations have clauses that claim that entities that have “more than four” employees must provide Workers’ Compensation. However, as it true of most professional clubs in the United States, players are often “independent contractors,” and amateur clubs often have no more than three or four employees on full-time staff. Therefore, some of this will require more legal interpretation. To the best of my reading, however, each state will require the Founders Cup to provide Workers’ Compensation to players.
It must also be noted that these “average” costs are likely to be non-representative of what is required of sports entities. Due to the likelihood of employment-related injuries, sports teams may theoretically have higher rates for workers compensation as they tend to do with insurance.)
Therefore, if we take a representative salary for lower-division soccer — a $30,000 annual salary for 22 players — we have a net of $660,000 as total player salaries. Within the above range of $0.95-$1.85 per $100 salary, each club could be expected to fork out $6,270-$12,210 in Workers’ Compensation costs. Across 10 clubs, that’s approximately $62,700-$122,210.
And this is one of the areas of disagreement — if NPSL provides this insurance league-wide, who should be paying for this cost? Just the Founders Cup members or all members who benefit from the Workers’ Compensation?
NPSL league sources conveyed that it remains unclear whether the league can provide Workers’ Compensation to both professional and amateur players.
However, Soc Takes subsequently learned that USL’s insurance covers professional athletes (Championship, League One) as well as amateur athletes (League Two). Therefore, this particular concern may not apply after all.
It is also possible that clubs resort to providing Workers’ Compensation themselves, in lieu of under a league-wide umbrella. However, Soc Takes understand that the rates for doing so are much higher and may be prohibitive for certain Founders Cup members.
Member disagreements and/or defections
In speaking to owners in the NPSL, there seems to be some disagreement regarding the leadership of the league. Two owners, both non-participants in the Founders Cup, expressed concerns about the interests of Cup members superseding those of non-participants. “We want them to succeed, but we want to be involved (in planning) as well,” one of the aforementioned two owners expressed to Soc Takes.
Meanwhile, a Founders Cup participant described discussions with league members as “herding cats,” citing conflicts between “big personalities” as sidetracking productive conversations.
Additionally, per sources, Miami FC representatives will be attending the NISA meetings being held in Charlotte this week. Soc Takes has learned that Miami FC is likely to participate in the Founders Cup for 2019, but a “small chance” exists that they could be playing with NISA in the fall. Either way, their involvement beyond 2019 appears equivocal.
A source says Miami FC is still committed to the Founders Cup for 2019, but is increasingly likely to jump to NISA for 2020. Soc Takes reached out to NISA chairman John Prutch, but an email went unanswered.
Additionally, two sources inform Soc Takes that other teams associated with the Founders Cup may look to NISA in 2020.
It must be recognized that NISA’s own status remains mired in confusion and conflict. But that’s a different article altogether.
Sanctioning
Amid reports that NPSL Pro/Founders Cup may seek to attain sanctioning, Soc Takes reached out to the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) via a series of emails to clarify the possibilities for sanctioning. This is what we learned:
Nipun Chopra: Is it possible for a professional league to sanction another pro league? Specifically, is it possible for NISA to award pro sanctioning to the NPSL Founders Cup (similar to the USL sanctioning of USL League Two)? Or would that sanctioning have to come directly from the USSF?
USSF spokesperson: Any sanctioning of a league is through U.S. Soccer. USL League Two is not sanctioned as a pro league. It is amateur.
NC: Could NISA theoretically sanction NPSL Pro as an amateur league distinct from the NPSL’s current sanction?
USSF: I’m not sure amateur leagues are “sanctioned” in the way we are discussing. The fact that a league is given sanctioning is to confirm it’s professional. If you want to be amateur you can create that without our approval.
NC: Is there anything prohibiting a league from being sanctioned as amateur, but it’s participating clubs paying its players?
USSF: Fine for amateur team to pay players.
(Note: The interview questions have been edited for clarity. The answers are unedited.)
Based on this interview, it seems that the Founders Cup can attain pro sanctioning from the USSF or amateur sanctioning via a multitude of routes. But, it cannot attain pro sanctioning via any other route than through the USSF.
Now, could they just call themselves a professional league and play outside of the USSF/USASA umbrella? Of course, but that might engage legal/logistical considerations such as FIFA player protection, U.S. Open Cup opportunities, etc.
There also remains a lack of clarity within the NPSL regarding the sanctioning option. An owner who’s not part of the Founders Cup was surprised to learn that they would be applying for sanctioning. On the other hand, a Founders Cup member told Soc Takes that the league would indeed attempt to attain sanctioning “outside the traditional route,” claiming that “administrative concerns” meant it would not be easy.
So, there you go. Lots of confusion with very few clear-cut answers. It seems the league will hobble to the starting line, but the success and future directions of the Founders Cup plan remain equivocal. But then, that’s par for the course in the madness of lower-division American soccer.
An NPSL spokesperson declined to comment on the contents of this story.
Follow Nipun on Twitter: NipunChopra7.
Support Soc Takes on Patreon for access to exclusive content and supporter benefits. Click here to become a patron today.
