Case Briefs
Class 3
Anti-trust Laws
Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare.
NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself” is the product that sports offers to customers. * Restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all. * The integrity of the product cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement. * Needs to be a uniform set of rules and governing body to ensure fair and exciting competition. * Agreements that further this objective are deemed to be procompetitive, despite their restraining effect.
USA v. NFL * Furthered members’ collective economic interests, it is essential that competitive balance exists within the league and the outcome of games are uncertain.
Philadelphia World Hockey Club Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club Inc. * Teams do not share profits like members of a typical business partnership. * However to maintain the financial integrity of all member clubs, protect economically weaker teams from stronger ones, professional sports leagues have rules mandating the sharing of certain revenues as well as limiting the degree of economic competition among its teams. * Substantial economic disparities may have the undesirable effect of adversely impacting competition.
Chicago Prof. Sports Ltd. Partnership v. NBA * Only one sports league for each sport, so they have a monopoly on that sport. * League can force clubs to engage in conduct with predominatly anticompetitive effects that harm the clubs.
Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball
Anti-trust Laws
Nature and Purposes of the Antitrust Laws * Prohibits agreements and collective action that unreasonably restrain trade. [section1] * Prohibits monopolization and attempted monopolization [section 2] * Purpose is to preserve a competitive marketplace and protect consumer welfare.
NCAA v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma * S.C. established an analytical framework for applying antitrust law to the sports industry. * The “competition itself” is the product that sports offers to customers. * Restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all. * The integrity of the product cannot be preserved except by mutual agreement. * Needs to be a uniform set of rules and governing body to ensure fair and exciting competition. * Agreements that further this objective are deemed to be procompetitive, despite their restraining effect.
USA v. NFL * Furthered members’ collective economic interests, it is essential that competitive balance exists within the league and the outcome of games are uncertain.
Philadelphia World Hockey Club Inc. v. Philadelphia Hockey Club Inc. * Teams do not share profits like members of a typical business partnership. * However to maintain the financial integrity of all member clubs, protect economically weaker teams from stronger ones, professional sports leagues have rules mandating the sharing of certain revenues as well as limiting the degree of economic competition among its teams. * Substantial economic disparities may have the undesirable effect of adversely impacting competition.
Chicago Prof. Sports Ltd. Partnership v. NBA * Only one sports league for each sport, so they have a monopoly on that sport. * League can force clubs to engage in conduct with predominatly anticompetitive effects that harm the clubs.
Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball