Jury Finds in Favor of ISL in Case Against World Aquatics, But Awards Only $1 in Damages

A jury has awarded a $1 settlement in favor of the International Swimming League in its lawsuit against FINA (now World Aquatics) over antitrust issues. The ISL sought $41 million in damages, claiming that anti-competitive behavior by the global governing body damaged their business interests.

The jury verdict found in ISL’s favor in all but one of the questions in front of them in the 8 day trial. The jury deliberated for approximately 3 hours on Thursday and approximately  2 hours and 45 minutes on Friday morning.

The case, first filed in 2018, claimed that World Aquatics (then FINA) led a boycott of a 2018 International Swimming League event, a precursor to the full league that launched the next season, by member federations, forcing its cancellation.

• See the complete original complaint here.

“This case has taken up resources that would have been much better utilised if they had been devoted to the sport and athletes. We thank the jury and Judge Corley for the resolution of the case,” said World Aquatics President Husain Al Musallam. “It was disappointing to learn during the trial that many athletes and service providers in the aquatics community remain unpaid by ISL and we welcome ISL’s commitment to pay the $7 million it owes to swimmers before attempting to re-start its league.”

The ISL announced late last year its plans to relaunch in 2026 after a four-year hiatus ostensibly caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The league’s founder and primary financer Konstantin Grigorishin amassed most of his fortune amid business dealings in the two countries.

Many athletes have said that they are still owed money by the league, including Irish swimmer Shane Ryan, who said the league still owes him $50,000.

“I absolutely love the ISL,” Ryan said upon the league announcing its plans to return. “But lost a lot of respect for it because they were late on their payment from the second season and I still haven’t gotten paid from the third.

“The only payment we got was the $7,500 that everyone received.”

It is unclear where ISL is planning to source the funding to pay old debts or restart the league after winning just a $1 verdict in this case. The $1 awarded implies that the jury felt that the ISL proved liability and injury, but were unable to prove a specific, non-speculative dollar amount of loss attributable to those damages.

This may have been supported by the league’s tenuous financial position throughout its existence, with no signs of any profit. Juries have historically been skeptical of assigning large damages in sports cases without strong alternative-world evidence that the events in question would have succeeded anyway.

The finding in favor of the ISL does allow them to seek attorneys’ fees and costs in the case, and can provide injunction against future anti-competitive behavior by World Aquatics.

UPDATE: ISL Management Makes a Statement

ISL Commissioner Ben Allen, who joined the organization shortly before it paused operations in 2022, sent SwimSwam a statement on Sunday.

“ISL welcomes the decision reached by the jury who, after carefully considering extensive evidence put before them over a two-week trial, concluded that FINA (“International Swimming Federation” now referred to as World Aquatics) had violated US antitrust laws using illegal, anti-competitive tactics to curtail ISL’s (“International Swimming League”) development.

“The jury upheld all ISL’s antitrust claims against FINA, finding the organisation fully liable, agreeing with ISL’s arguments that FINA’s conduct around 2018 severely disrupted the development of ISL by threatening sanctions against swimmers taking part in ISL and banning its events. Today’s decision ensures FINA’s conduct cannot be repeated in future.

“The purpose of ISL bringing these proceedings against FINA was to allow it to compete on an even playing field without unlawful interference and disruption. ISL has always supported athlete choice by creating more career opportunities for swimmers, while helping grow the sport’s global audience through innovative new formats which engaged viewers.

“This outcome is not only a victory for ISL but also for swimming more broadly. We want to thank our supporters and the wider swimming community for standing by us and we look forward to seeing you all as we work toward ISL’s relaunch.”

Jury Verdicts:

Part A: EXISTENCE OF A GROUP BOYCOTT AGAINST ISL

• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence that World Aquatics and one or more of its member federations refused to deal with ISL pursuant to an agreement to boycott ISL swimming events? – YES

Part B: SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 CLAIM – UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE – PER SE STANDARD

• SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 CLAIM – UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE – PER SE STANDARD: Did ISL prove a preponderance of the evidence that at least two parties to the agreement were direct competitors? – YES
• SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 CLAIM – UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE – PER SE STANDARD: Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the agreement had no purpose other than disadvantaging ISL? – NO
• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the agreement to cut off ISL’s access to a supply, facility, or market necessary for ISL to compete? – YES

Part C: SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 CLAIM – UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE – RULE OF REASON STANDARD

•  Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence the refusal to deal resulted in a substantial harm to competition? – YES
• Did World Aquatics prove by a preponderance of the evidence the refusal to deal was reasonable necessary to achieve competitive benefits? – NO
• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence the competitive harm substantially outweighs the competitive benefits? – YES

Part D: SHERMAN ACT SECTION 1 CLAIM – INJURY TO BUSINESS OR PROPERTY

• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence the refusal to deal caused ISL to suffer an injury to its business or property? – YES

Part E: CAUSATION AND ANTITRUST INJURY

• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence it was in fact injured as a result of World Aquatics’ violation of the antitrust laws? – YES
• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence World Aquatics’ violation of antitrust laws was a material cause of ISL’s injury? – YES
• Did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence its injury is an injury of the type that the antitrust laws were intended to prevent? – YES

Part F: Damages

• What amount of damages did ISL prove by a preponderance of the evidence it suffered as a result of World Aquatics’ violation of the antitrust laws? – $1