standards. Yet USSF cites no FIFA or USSF rule that provides “eligibility standards” that are different from the above definitions, except to say that FIFA and USSF allow professionals to participate in the Olympics. 3. USSF’s Authority Under FIFA Rules But USSF has still another argument. USSF claims that FIFA requires all games played in the U.S. by foreign teams to be approved by USSF. USSF argues, therefore, that it is legally obligated to exercise authority over professional soccer matches or risk discipline or expulsion from FIFA, which could result in the exclusion of U.S. teams from the Olympics and other international events. For this reason, USSF claims implied immunity from the antitrust laws regarding its oversight of professional soccer. See, Behagen, 884 F.2d at 529-30 (<HOLDING>). In support of its argument, USSF cites the
holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation holding ngbs seemingly anticompetitive conduct regarding amateur basketball exempt from antitrust laws because it was necessary to implement clear intent of congress holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim holding that it is clear that the entire business of baseball is exempt from antitrust claims holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal