NCAA v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Oklahoma and Univ. of
Georgia Athletic Ass’n case brief summary
468 U.S. 85 (1984)
CASE FACTS
Respondent universities contracted with a network to air football games, challenging petitioner athletic association's control over how many football games a university could televise. Petitioner threatened disciplinary action and respondents filed suit. The district court held that petitioner's control violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. The court of appeals court affirmed the judgment and found that petitioner's plan constituted illegal per se price fixing.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The order finding that petitioner's conduct violated the Sherman Act was affirmed because petitioner's actions were a horizontal restraint in trade. Petitioner's conduct decreased output and raised prices; televised football was a separate market that petitioner solely controlled and over which it had a monopoly. Petitioner's rules were not per se illegal because petitioner did foster competition in other sports, but not for televised football.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
468 U.S. 85 (1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner athletic association
challenged an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit that affirmed a judgment in favor of respondent
universities, found that petitioner violated the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C.S. § 1, and granted injunctive relief.CASE FACTS
Respondent universities contracted with a network to air football games, challenging petitioner athletic association's control over how many football games a university could televise. Petitioner threatened disciplinary action and respondents filed suit. The district court held that petitioner's control violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1. The court of appeals court affirmed the judgment and found that petitioner's plan constituted illegal per se price fixing.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed on the ground that petitioner's actions were a horizontal restraint of trade and unreasonable as a matter of law.
- Petitioner limited the number of games that a university televised, the number of games available to the public, and barred negotiation between broadcasters and universities.
- The Court found that televising university football was a separate market over which petitioner had monopolistic control. Petitioner restrained trade by raising prices and reducing output.
- Under the Rule of Reason, it was anti-competitive conduct that petitioner did not justify.
- The Court determined that it would be inappropriate to apply a per se rule under the facts.
CONCLUSION
The order finding that petitioner's conduct violated the Sherman Act was affirmed because petitioner's actions were a horizontal restraint in trade. Petitioner's conduct decreased output and raised prices; televised football was a separate market that petitioner solely controlled and over which it had a monopoly. Petitioner's rules were not per se illegal because petitioner did foster competition in other sports, but not for televised football.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment