NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

Last updated

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 20, 1984
Decided June 27, 1984
Full case nameNational Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, et al.
Citations468 U.S. 85 ( more )
104 S. Ct. 2948; 82 L. Ed. 2d 70; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 130
Case history
PriorThe Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 546 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Okla. 1982), The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 707 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1983); cert. granted, 464 U.S. 913(1983).
SubsequentThe Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 601 F. Supp. 307 (W.D. Okla. 1984)
Holding
Holding that the NCAA's television plan violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and was an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, O'Connor
DissentWhite, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
15 U.S.C.   §§ 1–7; 15 U.S.C.   §§ 12–27; and 29 U.S.C.   §§ 52–53

NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, which were designed to prohibit group actions that restrained open competition and trade.

Contents

The NCAA is an organization that regulates college athletics, and membership is voluntary, although NCAA schools are not allowed to play against non-NCAA teams. The case dealt with television rights to college football games, which were controlled by the NCAA and limited the appearance of university teams in each season. The NCAA believed that their control of television rights protected live attendance, which was disputed by a number of colleges.

These larger colleges formed the College Football Association to negotiate television contracts, until the NCAA advised the colleges that they would be banned from all NCAA competitions, not just in football. The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association sued to force the NCAA to stop the practice. The Supreme Court held that the NCAA's actions were a restraint of trade and ruled for the universities.

Background

Antitrust law

The Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted in 1890 to oppose the use of combinations, monopolies or cartels that harmed free and open trade. It prohibited the restraint of trade. [1] The Clayton Antitrust Act was enacted in 1914 to address shortcomings discovered in the Sherman Act. It specified the prohibited conduct, an enforcement scheme, and remedial measures. The Clayton Act allows for private parties to bring suit for treble damages and for injunctive relief. [2] From 1922 (when Federal Baseball Club v. National League ruled that baseball was not considered interstate commerce) until the late 1950s, sporting events were considered to be exempt from both acts, until the Supreme Court decision in International Boxing Club v. United States. [3]

Control of televised games

The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is a private non-profit organization founded in 1910 to regulate collegiate athletics. In the 1980s it consisted of approximately 900 college and university members, although only 187 participated in Division I football. [fn 1] [5] In 1938, the first college football game was commercially televised by the University of Pennsylvania. [fn 2] From 1940 to 1950, all of Pennsylvania's home games were televised. Beginning in 1952 and continuing through 1957, the NCAA commissioned a study by National Opinion Research Center to determine the effect of televising college football games on a number of areas, including live attendance. The studies indicated that live television coverage of college football decreased attendance for teams that were not being televised. Based on these studies, the NCAA began to institute controls beginning in 1953 through its Football Television Committee (Committee). [fn 3] The Committee initially determined that there would be only one televised game every Saturday and that no team would appear in a televised game more than once per season. In addition, it was determined that the revenue would be shared by the teams playing the televised game and the NCAA. [9]

The initial restriction was supported by all of the NCAA member schools [fn 4] with the exception of Pennsylvania, who stated that they would continue to televise their home games. The NCAA declared that Pennsylvania was a member in bad standing, and the four schools scheduled to play them at home refused to do so. Pennsylvania then agreed to abide by the NCAA rules on televising games. From 1952 to 1977, the NCAA submitted an annual plan to all member schools, who voted on it by mail. After 1977, the member schools voted on "Principles of Negotiation" instead of the actual plan. Only one network would hold a contract with the NCAA to broadcast games at a time. [11] Although all major television networks had held the contract at various times, from 1965 to 1981, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) had held the contract. [10]

College Football Association

Partially as a result of dissatisfaction with the NCAA's control of the television market, the College Football Association (CFA) was formed, consisting of major college football programs. [fn 5] In 1979, the CFA, through its executive director Chuck Neinas, began to negotiate a television contract for its members with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), despite the then ongoing NCAA negotiations with both ABC and the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS). [13] On learning of the CFA's negotiations, the NCAA issued an "Official Interpretation" stating that "The Association shall control all forms of televising of the intercollegiate football games of member institutions during the traditional football season..." [14] The CFA continued to work on a contract with NBC and came to an agreement on August 8, 1981. The NCAA swiftly stated that universities that participated in the CFA contract would face NCAA sanctions, not just in football, but in all other sports as well. Two member schools of the CFA, the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking an injunction to prevent the NCAA from taking action against CFA members. [fn 6] [15]

District court

On being filed on September 8, 1981, District Judge Lee Roy West recused himself from the case, being an alumnus of the University of Oklahoma for both his undergraduate and law degrees. Judge Juan Guerrero Burciaga of New Mexico was then appointed to hear the case. [16] During the trial, the NCAA claimed that it was a voluntary organization and if the plaintiffs or other schools did not wish to abide by the NCAA rules, they were free to terminate their membership. It was shown that the amount of money paid by ABC to teams appearing on television was established by Thomas C. Hansen, the NCAA Television Program Director. [fn 7] Universities were not allowed to negotiate their own terms. Burciaga pointed out an example of the control and price fixing by noting that in 1981, Oklahoma and the University of Southern California (both then ranked in the top 5 of the AP Poll and the Coaches' Poll) appeared on 200 stations in a regional broadcast. On the same weekend, ABC televised a game between The Citadel and Appalachian State on four stations. All four teams received the same amount of money for appearing. [14]

Burciaga found that not only did the NCAA engage in price fixing, they acted to limit production by restricting the number of games that could be broadcast. The NCAA further threatened universities with a group boycott if they did not agree to the terms dictated by the NCAA. He noted that ABC had encouraged the NCAA to seek an exemption from antitrust laws from Congress, but that the NCAA did not believe that they could obtain the exemption. [12]

Burciaga then examined the conduct of the NCAA under both the per se rule and the rule of reason. Finding that the NCAA violated antitrust laws under both evaluations, Burciaga issued both a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting the NCAA from interfering with the individual universities' television contracts and declaring the NCAA-ABC contract null and void. The NCAA then appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. [17]

Circuit Court of Appeals

The Tenth Circuit heard the case before Chief Judge James E. Barrett and Judges James K. Logan and Stephanie K. Seymour. In the appeal, the NCAA argued that Oklahoma and Georgia did not have standing to bring the suit, claiming that the schools suffered no actual injury. Logan, who wrote the opinion, flatly rejected that argument. [18]

The court then turned to whether the case should be evaluated under the per se rule or the rule of reason. Deciding on the per se rule, the court rejected the NCAA arguments that the television plan promoted live attendance, that it promoted balanced athletic competition, and that televised football competed with other, non-sports programs. The court noted that the NCAA plan restricted output and affirmed the trial court's per se ruling, while also holding that the district court erred in ruling television plan and contract constituted a group boycott. [19]

Chief Judge Barrett dissented, believing that the restraints were reasonable under the rule of reason and that the NCAA has an overwhelming interest in preserving the amateur nature of intercollegiate athletics. He would have reversed the district court, quashed the injunction, and held that there was no antitrust violation. [18]

The NCAA again appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. [20]

Opinion of the Court

Arguments

Frank H. Easterbrook argued the case for the NCAA and Andy Coats represented Oklahoma and Georgia. The United States Solicitor General, Rex E. Lee, filed an amicus curae brief in support of Oklahoma and Georgia, and argued the cause to the court. Other amicus briefs were filed by the National Federation of State High School Associations (supporting the NCAA) and the Association of Independent Television Stations (supporting Oklahoma and Georgia). [20]

Majority opinion

Justice John P. Stevens, author of the majority opinion John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice John P. Stevens, author of the majority opinion

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the court. Stevens stated that "There can be no doubt that the challenged practices of the NCAA constitute a 'restraint of trade'" [20] but noted not all restraints of trade were unreasonable, and that only an unreasonable restraint was prohibited by the Sherman Antitrust Act. Stevens noted that a league governing body was necessary for sporting events to take place and determined that the rule of reason, not per se rules applied to the case. [21] Stevens determined that since the NCAA restrained price and output, it created a system that was unrelated to a free and competitive market. [fn 8] [23] Since the NCAA television plan constituted a restraint of trade on its face, it placed the burden on the NCAA of establishing an affirmative defense that would justify the deviation from a free market. [24]

Stevens then went through the justifications that were offered by the NCAA. First, although the NCAA claimed that the television plan was a joint venture, he noted that unlike Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. , [25] the NCAA was not acting as a selling agent and that the sales occurred in a noncompetitive market. Stevens evaluated the NCAA's claim that the television plan enhanced the competitiveness of college football. Since the district court found no procompetitive efficiencies from the arrangement, Stevens rejected this justification. He also said that there was no need to penetrate the market against "nonexistent" competitors. Stevens likewise rejected the defense that the television plan was designed to protect live attendance, stating " The NCAA's argument that its television plan is necessary to protect live attendance is not based on a desire to maintain the integrity of college football as a distinct and attractive product, but rather on a fear that the product will not prove sufficiently attractive to draw live attendance when faced with competition from televised games." [24]

The NCAA position that an interest in maintaining a competitive balance justified the television plan was also rejected. [21] While agreeing with the desire to maintain such a balance, Stevens noted that there was no evidence that the plan succeeded in that effort. [fn 9] The decision of the circuit court was affirmed. [26]

Dissent

Justice Byron White, author of the dissent Justice White Official.jpg
Justice Byron White, author of the dissent

Justice Byron White, joined by Justice William Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion. White, a former college football star at Colorado, stated that while intercollegiate athletics bore a superficial resemblance to professional sports, it was clear that other, non-commercial goals played the main role. Its actions are based on the unique nature of college athletics, and White felt that the restrictions were reasonable. He would have overturned the circuit court. White did not find the majority's deference to the District Court's economic findings, and was not convinced that Oklahoma nor Georgia had shown either an increase in prices or a decrease in output. [27]

Subsequent developments

As a direct result of this ruling, more games were televised which had the initial effect of driving television revenues down. [21] [28] This trend reversed, and by 1991, Notre Dame had signed a contract with NBC to broadcast all home games for a five-year period, a contract which has been renewed several times and remains in effect as of 2024. [29] In 2009-10, the University of Texas at Austin reported profits of almost $69 million just from football. Most of this money was earned in television contracts before UT added its own Longhorn Network which will pay approximately $15 million per year (the Longhorn Network will be shut down on or before July 1, 2024, the date UT joins the Southeastern Conference). [30] The major conferences have reshuffled multiple times, most dramatically in the early 2010s and early 2020s, and the landscape of college football has changed significantly. Individual universities, their associated athletic conferences, and the individual bowl games continue to increase their revenue streams from television. As the profits for the universities and their athletics departments have grown, some have argued that the sense of exploitation of the amateur athlete has also grown. [31] In 2023, Andy Coats, the lawyer who had represented Oklahoma and Georgia, admitted to NBC News that the ruling "screwed up college football across the board ... [B]ut I don’t think anyone could have predicted what would happen". [32]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ As of March 2019, the NCAA membership is 1,117. [4]
  2. ↑ According to the Supreme Court opinion. It actually appears that the first commercially televised game was between Pennsylvania and the University of Maryland in 1940, [6] while the absolute first televised college game was Fordham University and Waynesburg University in 1939. [7]
  3. ↑ According to the opinion of the District Court. The Supreme Court stated that regulation began in 1951, prior to the studies. [8]
  4. ↑ Of the approximately 850 voting members of the NCAA, only 187 played NCAA Division I football. [10]
  5. ↑ The CFA consisted of members of the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big Eight Conference, the Southeastern Conference, the Southwest Conference, the Western Athletic Conference and independents Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, and the service academies. The Big Ten Conference and the Pacific-10 Conference did not participate. [12]
  6. ↑ Despite the injunction being granted, the CFA was unable to gain agreement from enough teams to meet their commitment to NBC, and the agreement was canceled. [14]
  7. ↑ For 1978, teams appearing on national television received US$533,600 and on regional broadcasts they received US$401,222. The NCAA took the rest (US$4,008,210), which included earmarks for Division II and III games. [14]
  8. ↑ Stevens quoted the District Court opinion, noting that "In a competitive market, each college fielding a football team would be free to sell the right to televise its games for whatever price it could get. The prices would vary for the games, with games between prominent schools drawing a larger price than games between less prominent schools. Games between the more prominent schools would draw a larger audience than other games." [22]
  9. ↑ Quoting the district court, Stevens noted that the "NCAA has been strikingly unsuccessful if it has indeed attempted to prevent the emergence of a 'power elite' in intercollegiate football." [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sherman Antitrust Act</span> 1890 U.S. anti-monopoly law

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Collegiate Athletic Association</span> American collegiate athletic organization

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and one in Canada. It also organizes the athletic programs of colleges and helps over 500,000 college student athletes who compete annually in college sports. The organization is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Southeastern Conference</span> Collegiate athletics conference operating primarily in the southeastern United States

The Southeastern Conference (SEC) is an American college athletic conference whose member institutions are located primarily in the South Central and Southeastern United States. Its fourteen members include the flagship public universities of ten states, three additional public land-grant universities, and one private research university. The conference is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The SEC participates in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I in sports competitions; for football it is part of the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), formerly known as Division I-A.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Big Eight Conference</span> Former U.S. college athletics conference

The Big Eight Conference was a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)-affiliated Division I-A college athletic association that sponsored football. It was formed in January 1907 as the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (MVIAA) by its charter member schools: the University of Kansas, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, and Washington University in St. Louis. Additionally, the University of Iowa was an original member of the MVIAA, while maintaining joint membership in the Western Conference.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that prohibited racial segregation in state supported graduate or professional education. The unanimous decision was delivered on the same day as another case involving similar issues, Sweatt v. Painter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium</span> Football stadium in Norman, Oklahoma, US

Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, also known as Owen Field or The Palace on the Prairie, is the football stadium on the campus of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma. It serves as the home of the Oklahoma Sooners football team. The official seating capacity of the stadium, following renovations before the start of the 2019 season, is 86,112, making it the 22nd largest stadium in the world, the 13th largest college stadium in the United States and the second largest in the Big 12 Conference, behind Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium at the University of Texas at Austin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Southwest Conference</span> United States college athletics league

The Southwest Conference (SWC) was an NCAA Division I college athletic conference in the United States that existed from 1914 to 1996. Composed primarily of schools from Texas, at various times the conference included schools from Oklahoma and Arkansas.

College football on television includes the broad- and cablecasting of college football games, as well as pre- and post-game reports, analysis, and human-interest stories. Within the United States, the college version of American football annually garners high television ratings.

College Football on CBS Sports is the blanket title used for broadcasts of college football games that are produced by CBS Sports, for CBS and CBS Sports Network.

<i>College Football on NBC Sports</i> College football coverage on NBC, CNBC, USA Network, and Peacock

College Football on NBC Sports is the de facto title used for broadcasts of NCAA college football games produced by NBC Sports.

On May 24, 1982, the United States Football League (USFL) reached an agreement with ABC and ESPN on television rights. The money for inaugural 1983 season would be a total of $13 million: $9 million from ABC and $4 million from ESPN.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961</span> United States law

The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 affects Title 15 of the United States Code, Chapter 32 "Telecasting of Professional Sports Contest"

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 (1948), is a per curiam United States Supreme Court decision involving racial segregation toward African Americans by the University of Oklahoma and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that preserved the reserve clause in Major League Baseball (MLB) players' contracts. By a 5–3 margin, the Court reaffirmed the antitrust exemption that had been granted to professional baseball in 1922 under Federal Baseball Club v. National League, and previously affirmed by Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. in 1953. While the majority believed that baseball's antitrust exemption was anomalous compared to other professional sports, it held that any changes to the exemption should be made through Congress and not the courts.

<i>College Football on ABC</i> Television series

ABC first began broadcasting regular season college football games in 1950, and has aired games of the now-National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) annually since 1966. After the ABC Sports division was merged into ESPN Inc. by parent company Disney in 2006, broadcasts have since been produced by ESPN, and have primarily used the ESPN College Football branding and graphics instead of the College Football on ABC branding.

College Football on TBS was the American presentation of the TBS cable channel's regular season college football television package.

The College Football Association (CFA) was a group formed by many of the American colleges with top-level college football programs in order to negotiate contracts with TV networks to televise football games. It was formed in 1977 by 63 schools from most of the major college football conferences and selected schools whose football programs were independent of any conference.

<i>OBannon v. NCAA</i> 2015 US federal appeals court case

O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049, was an antitrust class action lawsuit filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The lawsuit, which former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon filed on behalf of the NCAA's Division I football and men's basketball players, challenges the organization's use of the images and the likeness of its former student athletes for commercial purposes. The suit argues that upon graduation, a former student athlete should become entitled to financial compensation for NCAA's commercial uses of their image. The NCAA maintains that paying its athletes would be a violation of its concept of amateurism in sports. At stake are "billions of dollars in television revenues and licensing fees."

Andrew Montgomery Coats is an American lawyer and politician. He attended the University of Oklahoma. A Democrat, he served as mayor of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma from 1983 to 1987. In 1984, Coats successfully argued the case NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma before the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. From 1996 to 2010, he was the Dean of the University of Oklahoma College of Law. He is also a former president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. From 1976 to 1980, he was Oklahoma County District Attorney. In 1980, he unsuccessfully ran in the United States Senate election to replace Henry Bellmon. He was inducted into the Oklahoma Hall of Fame in 2005. His son, Sanford Coats served as United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma from 2009 to 2016. He is the most recent mayor of Oklahoma City to be a Democrat.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the compensation of collegiate athletes within the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). It followed from a previous case, O'Bannon v. NCAA, in which it was found that the NCAA was profiting from the namesake and likenesses of college athletes. The case dealt with the NCAA's restrictions on providing college athletes with non-cash compensation for academic-related purposes, such as computers and internships, which the NCAA maintained was to prevent the appearance that the student athletes were being paid to play or treated as professional athletes. Lower courts had ruled that these restrictions were in violation of antitrust law, which the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous ruling in June 2021.

References

  1. ↑ Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.   §§ 1 – 7 (1978).
  2. ↑ Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C.   §§ 12 – 27 and 29 U.S.C.   §§ 52 – 53 (1978).
  3. ↑ International Boxing Club v. United States, 358 U.S. 242 (1959); Thomas Scully, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma: The NCAA's Television Plan is Sacked by the Sherman Act 34 Cath. U.L. Rev. 857 (1985).
  4. ↑ What is the NCAA? NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA (2019) (last visited Mar. 7, 2019).
  5. ↑ James S. Arico, NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma: Has the Supreme Court Abrogated the Per Se Rule of Antitrust Analysis 19 Loy. L. Rev. 437 (1985).
  6. ↑ Richard Whittingham, Rites of autumn: the story of college football 11 (2001).
  7. ↑ Keith Dunnavant, The fifty-year seduction: how television manipulated college football, from the birth of the modern NCAA to the creation of the BCS 2 (2004).
  8. ↑ Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (hereinafter cited as Bd. of Regents); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 546 F. Supp. 1276 (W.D. Okla. 1982) (hereinafter cited as NCAA I).
  9. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276; Scully, at 857; Porto, The Supreme Court and the NCAA: The Case for Less Commercialism and More Due Process in College Sports 1 (2011).
  10. 1 2 3 Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276.
  11. ↑ Eric A. Seiken, College Football on Television in Sports and the Law: Major Legal Cases 56-62 (Charles E. Quirk, ed., 1999)
  12. 1 2 NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276; Arico, at 437.
  13. ↑ Arico, at 437; Porto, at 1.
  14. 1 2 3 4 NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276.
  15. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276; James E. Hartley, The rule of reason 23 Antitrust Monograph 76-81 (1999); Arico, at 437; Scully, at 857; Seiken, at 56-62; Taylor Branch, The Cartel: Inside the Rise and Imminent Fall of the NCAA 1 (2011).
  16. ↑ Porto, at 1.
  17. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla. v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 707 F.2d 1147 (10th Cir. 1983) (hereinafter cited as NCAA II); NCAA I, 546 F. Supp. at 1276; Arico, at 437.
  18. 1 2 NCAA II, 707 F.2d at 1147.
  19. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; NCAA II, 707 F.2d at 1147; Arico, at 437.
  20. 1 2 3 Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85.
  21. 1 2 3 Arico, at 437.
  22. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; NCAA I, 546 F.Supp. at 1276; James V. Koch, The Economic Realities of Amateur Sports Organization 61 Ind. L.J. 9 (1985).
  23. ↑ Theodore L. Banks, 1 Distribution Law: Antitrust Principles and Practice, 1-52.1, 1-53 (Supp. 2004).
  24. 1 2 Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; Arico, at 437; Hartley, at 76-81.
  25. ↑ Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. , 441 U.S. 1 (1979).
  26. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; Hartley, at 76-81; Seiken, at 56-62.
  27. ↑ Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. at 85; Arico, at 437; Hartley, at 76-81; Seiken, at 56-62.
  28. ↑ Koch, at 9.
  29. ↑ Seiken, at 56-62.
  30. ↑ Brian May, Case Studies in Organizational Communication: Ethical Perspectives and Practices 183-85 (2012).
  31. ↑ Ron Woods, Social Issues in Sport 377 (2011).
  32. ↑ "Meet the man who thinks he 'screwed up' college football with a Supreme Court win". NBC News. August 26, 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.