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
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