Legal Analysis of Player Restraints Under the Sherman Act Part II: Agreements Not to Compete for Players - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 11
About This Presentation
Title:

Legal Analysis of Player Restraints Under the Sherman Act Part II: Agreements Not to Compete for Players

Description:

Legal Analysis of Player Restraints Under the Sherman Act Part II: Agreements Not to Compete for Players Mackey Per se illegality inappropriate because of clubs ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:95
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 12
Provided by: Ross2d
Learn more at: https://law.psu.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Legal Analysis of Player Restraints Under the Sherman Act Part II: Agreements Not to Compete for Players


1
Legal Analysis of Player Restraints Under the
Sherman ActPart II Agreements Not to Compete
for Players
2
Mackey
  • Per se illegality inappropriate because of clubs
    unique interdependence
  • Black-letter analysis under rule of reason
  • 1) can plaintiff show some demonstrative
    anti-competitive effect?
  • 2) is the rule justified by legitimate business
    purposes?
  • 3) is the rule no more restrictive than
    necessary?

3
Mackey/2
  • Did the Rozelle Rule have an anticompetitive
    effect?
  • Who is harmed by the rule?

4
Re-allocating Strengths Weakness
  • SUPPOSE TM A NEEDS QB, TM B NEEDS RB, A HAS EXTRA
    RB, Q HAS EXTRA QB?
  • SUPPOSE A HAS EXTRA RB, B HAS EXTRA LB, C HAS
    EXTRA QB AND NEEDS A LB?
  • SUPPOSE A HAS EXTRA RB, B HAS EXTRA LB, C HAS
    EXTRA QB BUT NEEDS A PK?
  • RESULT IN A FREE AGENT MKT?

5
Mackey/ 3
  • What constitutes a legitimate business
    justification for a player restraint rule?
  • Protecting investment in player development
  • Player continuity
  • Competitive balance

6
Mackey /4
  • Was the Rozelle Rule necessary to achieve the
    desired level of competitive balance?

7
Fraser
  • Is the elimination of all labor market
    competition in Major League Soccer consistent
    with Mackey?
  • Is control of destructive irrational spending a
    legitimate justification?

8
Plymouth Whalers
  • Major Junior Hockey
  • For-profit clubs outdraw US minor league hockey
    in attendance
  • Players not paid salaries but are paid living
    expenses
  • Rosters limited to players between 16-20
  • Only 3 20 year-olds per team

9
(No Transcript)
10
Whalers /2
  • Challenged Van Ryn rule 20 year-olds must have
    played previous year in a league affiliated with
    NHL
  • Closes loophole in NHL CBA, creating free agent
    if drafted youngster
  • Doesnt sign with drafting team
  • Doesnt return to college team
  • Doesnt play with unaffiliated team (i.e. Europe)

11
Whalers /3
  • Why isnt the market for competition among OHL
    teams a relevant market?
  • Who is injured by the lower quality of play in
    the OHL?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com