Supreme Court Sends Signals in NFL Antitrust Suit

[Stallion]

I'm telling you the Supreme Court has left open the door to a strong argument of an anti-trust violation applicable to the NCAA too. (Note the NCAA filed a friend of the Court Brief on behalf of the NFL who lost). Several of us attorneys have noted on here over the years that in NCAA v. Georgia and Oklahoma, the Supreme Court noted that each university is an individual entity for antitrust purposes and each separate university controls its own TV rights. The NFL case reasserts what we have emphasized over the years. After 20 years of the BCS you may be scratching your head because since the BCS everything has been about Conferences whose collective power exerts substantial market power to the exclusion of other NCAA schools-but that is not what the Supreme Court said. Why shouldn't a TV network be able to enter into a contract with any school it wants to televise on a particular date. Why shouldn't a bowl be able to choose any team that will best fit its purposes. The second important fact is that if the NFL(or BCS) is not a single business enterprise, then each member can be sued together for an "contract, combination or conspiracy" they took part in. For the novices-a single business enterprise can not conspire under the anti-trust laws with itself as a matter of law. This leaves open the question of whether the BCS and BCS Conferences are involved in monopolistic restraint of trade by entering into exclusive BCS Bowl contracts with "tying arrangements" that have repercussions in non-BCS Bowl Contracts, TV Contracts and Bowl realignment.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 26fe2.html

[EastStang]

The BCS response to that, is that "all the Division 1 teams are part of the BCS" and have voluntarily entered into the BCS contract. Of course that's about like having Guido shake you down and say you voluntarily bought "fire" insurance from him. The interesting factoid pointed out in the SI column is that the ratings for the ACC/BE BCS Bowl games have drawn fewer fans and fewer viewers than the games involving the non-AQ teams (Boise, Utah, TCU, Hawaii) except where they play of course SEC teams. So, the excuse for the BCS doesn't hold water as far as the ACC/BE is concerned. (On the other hand BCS games involving SEC, Pac 10, Big Ten and Big XII have done very well). So, I agree that it is a restraint of trade. That also goes to bowl eligibility as well (this could be horrible for smaller schools). If you are the Emerald Bowl would you rather the MWC champion vs. Pac 10 #5 or SEC #12 vs. Pac 10 #5? Open season means that 11 SEC (maybe not Vandy), all 12 Big XII, all Big Ten teams would get bowl bids. That means basically 60% of the bowl slots right there. Add in the Pac 10, and that's another 8 at least. You're now up to 44 bowl slots leaving few for ACC/BE/CUSA/MWC/WAC/MAC/SBC.

[Stallion]

yes I've conceded non-BCS schools have handed this argument to the BCS.

[Dooby]

Beware the 9-0 decision. As a practical matter, I disagree with the decision, but I suspect it legally is the correct one, though I am no anti-trust expert. I have always thought of the NFL as a single entity with franchises. Yes, the McDonalds restaurants compete with eachother, but they are really part of a single enterprise.