​U.S. Soccer has fired back.

In the face of a lawsuit filed by the NASL last month — one that alleges a pattern of conspiratorial behavior that led to the second-tier league’s current state — the United States Soccer Federation is asking for a “pre-motion” conference with judge Margo Brodie, one that could lead to the dismissal of the NASL’s lawsuit.

The motion, filed yesterday in Brooklyn, New York, by USSF council Latham & Watkins and obtained by FourFourTwo USA, seeks to have the NASL’s case dismissed prior to an injunction hearing on Oct. 31. Should U.S. Soccer convince the judge that the NASL’s arguments are unlikely to succeed, the suit might never go to trial.

VIEW THE FULL FILING DOCUMENT HERE

The filing is somewhat obligatory. In most situations, counsel is going to try to get a complaint dismissed before it ever reaches trial. The mere filing of such a motion doesn’t make a complaint any less meritorious.

But the motion does give us some early insight into how the federation plans to tackle the NASL’s charges. Some of the arguments are technical, like the claim the NASL lacks standing. But there is also some indication of how the USSF would fight a broader, more theoretical battle, should this ever reach trial.

Here are 5 things we now know about the USSF’s defense:

(Italics indicate language from U.S. Soccer’s filed motion.)

The NASL has never met standards

“NASL concedes that it does not meet the Professional League Standards (“PLS”) for Division II status — indeed, it has failed to do so almost every year since it began operations in 2011.”

It’s the second sentence of the filing’s first section — the first argument the federation brings up. The subtext: This is a failing league that we’ve propped up long enough.

The NASL was fine with the federation’s Division II standards as long as it was getting waivers. Once those waivers went away, U.S. Soccer is part of a conspiracy? It doesn’t make sense, the motion argues.

What the motion doesn’t address is the NASL’s broader argument about standards: Why do they exist? Why are they set at their current levels? Why do they appear to protect MLS? Those arguments alone could be enough for this case to move forward.

The alleged conspiracy started before the new NASL existed

“But the undisputed facts, which are subject to judicial notice, are that the PLS that NASL challenges were developed 15 years before NASL was formed.”

If U.S. Soccer has it in for the NASL, specifically, the motion asks, then explain why the standards the league so abhors were in place long before the NASL came back into being.

This is the strongest argument in motion.

The NASL is trying to paint a broad pattern of decisions and behavior that amount to a conspiracy targeting the league. Within that depiction are a lot of smaller, compelling issues, like the arguments regarding league standards.

But there is a major timing issue here, one that undermines the idea that the conspiracy could be targeted: How could U.S. Soccer plan to ruin the new NASL before the new NASL even existed?

Oh, yeah. About those waivers

“And of course, if USSF were bent on driving NASL out of business, why has it given NASL yearly waivers to allow it to participate as a Division II league and thereby assist NASL in trying to grow?”

Within any conspiracy, there has to be a motive. But the motive the NASL alleges — to drive the league out of existence — is undercut by one teeny, tiny, annoying little fact: U.S. Soccer could have ended the NASL much sooner.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the USSF, here in 2017, couldn’t have had a change of heart. It could have woken up this summer and said ‘now we hate that league.’ That’s entirely possible.

But remember: The NASL is trying to paint broad pattern of behavior here, one that spans the entirety of the league’s existence — one that includes the time when the USSF seemed to go out of its way to keep the NASL at the D-II level.

If U.S. Soccer was so “bent” on ending the NASL, the motion arguments, why does the NASL even exist? What part of this conspiracy led to those waivers?

NEXT: USSF takes aim at NASL's very reason for being