Provided by the 

Minnesota Legislative Reference Library 

Perspectives: Soccer has long lore in Minnesota law

 By: Marshall H. Tanick  July 8, 2019 0

“Some people think that football [soccer] is a matter of life and death
… I can assure them it is much more important than that.”
Bill Shankly, star British soccer player and coach
“I am Woman, hear me roar.”
Helen Reddy, “I Am Woman” (1972) Marshall H.
Tanick
The drive by the United States women’s soccer team to defend its
world title is culminating at the quadrennial World Cup championship
event in France.

The American squad got off to a rousing start in the early round games, defeating a vastly
overmatched opponent in its opening match 13-0 win over Thailand, followed by two
other dominating, but more competitive, consecutive shut-outs of 3-0 over Chile and 2-0
against Sweden followed by a thrilling win over Spain, which actually managed to score a
goal in a 2-1 loss to the American women. The team had another narrow 2-1 defeat of host
.
country France, placing it in the semi finals against England The American squad then
edged England 2-1 to qualify for the championship game this Sunday, July 7th, in Lyon, the
finale of the 52-game event.

As they progress on the pitch, members of the U.S. team are engaged in another
contentious challenge: litigation. Like women in several other sports, the female soccer
players are suing for more parity in pay with their male counterparts. All 28 members of the
team sued the overseer soccer organization in federal court in Los Angeles in March alleging
“institutional gender discrimination,” and the parties reached agreement in the midst of the
World Cup to engage in mediation after the international event concludes. Morgan v. United
States Soccer Federation, Inc., 2-19-CV-01717 (C. D. Cal. March 8, 2019).

Their lawsuit is far from the only piece of soccer-related litigation, a genre that has kicked
around the courtrooms of Minnesota for some time, growing in momentum as the sport has
increased in popularity.

The success of the U.S. women’s team at the international level in France over the past few
weeks provides an opportune occasion to review a potpourri of soccer litigation in this state.

Job jousts
Several cases decided by the state and federal courts in Minnesota have dealt with soccer-
related jobs.

In Wright v. Robbie, 1988 WL 123222 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (unpublished), the ousted
general manager of the Minnesota Strikers sued for breach of contract under a two-year
agreement with the team after he was fired following the club’s first year in the MISL.

A Hennepin County District Court judge granted summary judgment for the ousted
executive, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the contract stated that
salary was “guaranteed” for only the first year, the “plain reading” of the contract and intent
of the parties was for two years of compensation. This was reflected in another paragraph of
the contract, which provided that if the club were sold to “another entity…any new entity
shall guarantee [his] employment…through the duration” of the contract.

A high school teacher, licensed to coach soccer, failed to obtain reinstatement after other
unlicensed personnel were hired to coach the girls’ varsity soccer team in Hartzberg v.
 ,
Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196 1997 WL 292175 (Minn. Ct. App.
1997) (unpublished). The coach did not have his contract renewed after 13 years due to
complaints from many quarters, and his next two successors were not licensed to coach
soccer.

The Court of Appeals upheld the school district’s position under Minn. Stat. §125.191, which
allows school boards to hire coaches who are unlicensed if they are deemed to have the
“knowledge and experience necessary to coach the sport.” This gave the school district the
“authority to hire the most qualified applicant regardless of licensure.”

A youth soccer program coordinator was entitled to damages and reinstatement of his job
based on age discrimination in Kehoe v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 1997 WL 292175 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1997) (unpublished). In this instance, a 61-year-old man was terminated from the
coordinator position, which went to a 23-year-old former summer intern. Following a trial for
age discrimination, the man won a jury award of $60,000 in damages and an order for
reinstatement to the next available soccer position.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed because the employer’s grounds for denying
him the new position—his lack of capabilities and competence—was pretextual.
Discrimination was reflected in disparaging statements that were made about the claimant,
including terming him an “old fart,” calling the place where he worked a “retirement center”
where he had been “put out to pasture,” and referring to giving him a gift of “senior golf.”

However, a gender-discrimination soccer claim failed in Grandson v. University of Minnesota ,

272 F3d 568 (8th
Cir. 2001). The case was brought as a class action lawsuit by a group of
female students at the University of Minnesota who sought injunctive relief and monetary
damages for unequal treatment under Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act. U.S. District
Court Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed the case, and the 8th Circuit affirmed.

One of the claimants, a varsity women’s soccer player at the Duluth campus, could not
pursue her charge of failure to grant her a scholarship under the “rigorous standards” for
damage claims under Title IX because there was no evidence of “prior notice to a University
official with authority to address the [complaint] and a response demonstrating deliberate
indifference to the alleged violation.”

Soccer sites
As the men’s professional Loons team in Major League Soccer (MLS) progresses through its
first season at the new Allianz facility in the Midway area of St. Paul, interest in soccer is
further escalating. That increased attention draws upon several cases involving other sites
where the game is played in Minnesota. Questions also remain about the extent public
financing will play in this project. Both of these matters are expected to be controversial and
the source of likely litigation in Minnesota.

,
In STAR Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson 644 N.W.2d 72 (Minn. 2002), claims of
malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were dismissed against a law firm that allegedly
failed to disclose to a client the financial problems of a prospective lender, which the firm
had learned while defending the financier in a separate lawsuit. The firm’s nondisclosure to
its current client, who was seeking to develop an indoor soccer facility, was not actionable
because the firm “did not obtain information [from the other litigation] that was material to
its representation” of its soccer developer client in this case.

Creation of an athletic center, including soccer fields, at a historic site at Fort Snelling did not
violate the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) in State of Minnesota, by Fort
,
Snelling State Park Association v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 673 N.W.2d 169
(Minn. Ct. App. 2003). In this case, a Hennepin County District Court judge denied
declaratory and injunctive relief that would have prevented the Minneapolis Park Board from
converting the Fort’s polo grounds to a site for soccer fields, and other sports. The Minnesota
Court of Appeals affirmed.

In its holding, the court noted that while the century-old polo facility is protected by MERA as
a “historical resource,” the soccer pitches (fields) and venues for other sports in the area
would not cause “material adverse effect” to the site. It also noted that the development
 would have some “positive effects of reinvigorating the area on the presently abandoned
historical buildings” and it would provide means by which “more people would learn the
history of the [Fort] by visiting the site.”

A YMCA summer camp, including special soccer youth programs, was exempted from real
,
estate taxes in Young Men’s Christian Association-Olson v. County of Case 1987 WL 12473
(Minn. Tax 1987). In this case, the tax court concluded that the camp qualified for
exemption under Minn. Stat. §272.02, subd.1(6) and Article X, Section 1, of the state
constitution as a charitable institution, noting its stated purpose of “being helpful to others
without immediate expectation of material reward.” Since it operated at a financial loss and
was available to all youths, “regardless of race, color, and creed,” it satisfied charitable
standards for tax exemption.

Injury issues
As is the case with any sporting event, injuries often arise during the course of soccer
matches, heading to some rather unusual injuries that have shaped both civil and criminal
case law in Minnesota.

,
In Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College 504 N.W.2d 778 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), a
soccer player shot during a gang fight that erupted a soccer festival could not sue the state
community college where the event occurred. In reversing a Ramsey County District Court
judge, the Court of Appeals held that the school’s decision not to cancel the event or hire
more security guards, despite rumors of potential “trouble” between youth gangs, fell within
the “discretionary” action statute, found in Minn. Stat. §3.736, subd. 3(b), which immunizes
state institutions, including community colleges. It was also determined the college had no
duty to warn of potential trouble because the shooting assault “was not foreseeable.”

A drive-by shooting at a soccer field in Richfield resulted in conviction of the driver of first-
,
degree murder in State v. Souvannarath 545 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1996). In upholding a
conviction of first-degree murder in Hennepin County, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected
the driver’s claim of insufficient evidence. In doing so, the court noted he was “much more
than just passively acquiescent” in the incident, since he gave the pistol to a passenger, who
did the shooting and then “disposed of the murder weapon,” which constituted aiding and
abetting first-degree murder.

The growing popularity of soccer in this state is attested to by the success of Minnesota
United, aka the Loons, in the midst of their sold-out inaugural season at the striking Allianz
Field in the Midway district of St. Paul. Interest in the world’s most popular support will crest
again in 2022 when the men’s World Cup takes place in Qatar.

As attention to the game grows, it inevitably will augment the lore and law of the sport in
this state.

Marshall H. Tanick is an attorney with the Twin Cities law firm of Meyer Njus Tanick.

PERSPECTIVES POINTERS
Key elements of a MERA claim
Civil action to protect against “pollution, impairment, or destruction” of natural resources.
Standing for any resident of state.
Declaratory and injunctive relief authorized.
Immunity for actions done pursuant to official governmental permission.

Copyright © 2019 Minnesota Lawyer, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 900, Campbell Mithun Tower, Minneapolis, MN

55402 (612) 333-4244