Chicago Professional Sports, Ltd. & WGN v. NBA (Bulls I) case
brief summary
961 F.2d 667 (1992)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff broadcasting company was a Chicago broadcasting company that televised sports. Plaintiff team was a professional basketball team. When defendant, a professional basketball association, restricted all teams in the association to a 20-game limit for telecasts, plaintiffs objected.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed and held that the under the rule of reason, plaintiff team and plaintiff broadcasting company would suffer injury-in-fact with the 20-game restriction, and the court concluded that it would not overturn the decision of the lower court to enjoin defendant.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uxbOVE7AC5uMaYeW7swsNqUQzw4qt_oT8rkDzN3lFgWmdoikZ6Fo7DfgFZJVZ6m82hvtOzF7TyVqIARuJchK7yScwCj2F1bitOPxk9PgninaI-DOlsoepD9l_Uu4qeN6aV-Sojo05eMZD9A9q6BUG-XNJUMIzTyXZ8n636uBlWPUhpa_gYtX0pr-KOEIzZFQnV-aRYTwVEVYKny4oH0F2JbmhfohKeU7pkJX9YnRKB3iGjsHua7TLiSeTUmnDP76NeIDdvbhMONYo=s0-d)
961 F.2d 667 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant, a professional basketball
association, appealed a decision from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to
enjoin defendant from enforcing the 20-game limit for broadcasting
basketball games imposed on plaintiff team and plaintiff broadcasting
company.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff broadcasting company was a Chicago broadcasting company that televised sports. Plaintiff team was a professional basketball team. When defendant, a professional basketball association, restricted all teams in the association to a 20-game limit for telecasts, plaintiffs objected.
DISCUSSION
- The court held that under the rule of reason the plaintiffs would be injured by defendant's actions and that, therefore, defendant was enjoined from enforcing the 20-game limit.
- The court found that the Sports Broadcasting Act (Act), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1291, did not exempt defendant's actions from an antitrust violation.
- The court held that the Act dealt with transfers made, not transfers forbidden, which was the type of restriction the defendant created.
- The court concluded that plaintiffs would suffer injury-in-fact unless defendant was enjoined.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed and held that the under the rule of reason, plaintiff team and plaintiff broadcasting company would suffer injury-in-fact with the 20-game restriction, and the court concluded that it would not overturn the decision of the lower court to enjoin defendant.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment