Ijgls.indiana.edu



Part II: Professional/Int’l AthleticsPart I: Olympic & International Sports Rules & ProceduresThe Olympic MovementInt’l Olympic CommitteeNon-profit, non-governmental organization under Swiss lawIOC possesses the rights ot and governs the operations of the Olympics and is the final authority on all questions National Olympic CommitteeExists for each country participating in the Olympics Typically provide for internal dispute resolution procedures/arbitration Have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code, which has the force of int’l lawUSOC is the American NOCAdjudication of Olympic-Related DisputesReynolds v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Federation Athlete sued the IAAF in court for breach of k and defamation after positive drug test IAAF did not show up to court, athlete obtained default judgment against IAAFStated that the court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdictionHolding: Defects in personal jurisdiction are not waived by default when a party fails to appear or to respondIAAF is based in England and owns no property/transacts no business in OhioEven if IAAF purposefully availed itself of Ohio, urine sample was taken in Monaco, analyzed in France, arbitrated in EnglandNo bases for finding personal jurisdiction in Ohio Walton-Floyd v. USOCAthlete alleged that the USOC negligently misrepresented the nature of a drug when athlete made an inquiry about it on the USOC’s drug hotline Athlete called hotline and was told the inquired drug was not on the banned listShe later failed the drug test, and the drug that caused it was what she inquired Holding: There is no implied private right of action under Amateur Sports ActUSOC did not owe athlete a duty to act under common law Athletes Options Limited judicial remedies existStrong emphasis on resolving int’l/Olympic disputes through internal administrative procedures and arbitration Arbitration of Olympic Disputes Amateur Sports ActRequires that the USOC create a dispute resolution process that entitles an athlete to appeal to the American Arbitration Association for final, and nonbinding arbitration However, the int’l federation may not recognize the decision Olympic CharterSince 1995, any dispute arising on the occasion of or in connection w/ the Olympic games shall be submitted exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for SportAll athletes agree to this as a condition of Olympic participation and waive their rights to national courts Also deals with all appeals after internal remedies exhaustedLindland v. USA Wrestling Athlete moved to have arbitrator’s award enforced when the USAW refused to honor itAthlete protested result of match, arbitrator ruled a rematch, which he wonCourt held that athlete was entitled to that arbitrator’s decision.USAW then initiated a 2nd arbitration, which ruled counter to 1st arbitrator Holding: Stevens Act does not authorize arbitration about the propriety of another arbitrator’s decision. An arbitrator is not empowered to re-determine the merits of any claim already determined.Once the 1st arbitrator’s award was confirmed by the Court, it was no longer simply the view of a fellow arbitrator could disagreeThe 2nd arbitration cannot be confirmed bc the entire proceeding was ultra vires and the award violates the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Assoc. Arbitration – Antidoping Agency and Tim MontgomeryArbitration – Vlasov and ATP Tour Arbitration – Landis v. Antidoping AgencyOlympic Trademark and IP Issues; Commercialism Amateur Sports ActCongress conferred the USOC exclusive trademark rights to the Olympic name, symbol, derivative words, and the mottoUSOC also grated exclusive rights to license commercial and promotional use of Olympic trademarks to raise funds and support for US participation in games O-M Bread v. USOCO-M Bread (trademark holder) claimed that it had registered the mark “Olympic Kids” for its bakery goods Registered “Olympic” trade mark before the exclusive right to use “Olympic” was given to the USOC – but allowed preexisting rights to be grandfathered in O-M moved to register “Olympic Kids” but was opposedBoard held the grandfathered rights did not extend to registering “Olympic Kids”Holding: The protection granted to the USOC’s use of the Olympic words and symbols differs from the normal trademark protection in that it is not necessary to prove that a contested use is likely to cause confusion Rights of prior users are protected from diminution but they are also restricted from enlargement Board was correct in finding that “Olympic” and “Olympic Kids” are different marks, thus O-M bread was restricted USOC v. Xclusive Leisure USOC sued Xclusive for trademark infringement, alleging Xclusive set up a ticket website to sell tickets to the 2008 Beijing Olympics and used the USOC’s trademarks in order to lend authenticity to its website, when it did not have the authority to do so. Holding: Court applied the eight-factor test and found that Xclusive’s use of the trademarked Olympic rings and the name "Olympic" was likely to confuse the reasonably prudent consumer into believing its website was official when, in fact, it was not USOC’s trademarks were strong and that Xclusive’s use of the Olympic marks were nearly identical or identical to the USOC’s marks, while offering the same offered by the USOC, making them highly relatedXclusive’s intent in using the USOC’s marks were in bad faith, as it was using these marks similar to the USOC’s marks in order to deceive consumers into believing that they were purchasing "official tickets"Non-Commercial Use ExceptionUse of the Olympic name in protesting the conversion of former facilities to a prison was held not to violate any trademark, because:Nothing was commercially sold, and Not likely to confuse as an endorsement of the USOCPart II: Enforcement of Sports ContractsThe Law of ContractsEnforcing Player Contracts If the words are not ambiguous, the plain meaning rule prohibits judicial constructionDeclaratory judgment calling for judicial construction of k provisions may be maintained where k language is ambiguous Courts regularly enforce negative covenants, prohibiting the players from performing for another team during the k period (negative injunction), but not specific performanceRequires “irreparable harm,” usually determined by “unique skills”Individualized, factual determination Some Courts require proof of D (potential) performance w/ direct econ competitor Action for Reformation Requires a showing of mutual mistake, misrepresentation, fraud, duress, or other misconduct; Plaintiff bears burden by clear and convincing evidence Threshold Question: Personal JurisdictionBallclub possibilities in filing against player…Player’s permanent residencePlayer’s temporary residence Situs of player-team negotiationsPlayer-plaintiff possibilities in choosing appropriate forum for litigation State where games are playedState where revenues are derivedState in which club is incorporated State where team is officed State featuring broadcasts or recruiting efforts Minnesota Muskies v. HudsonPlayer had negotiated and agreed to a k to play basketball for Minnesota while still under k w/ St. Louis, and then chose to remain in St. LouisHolding: The doors of a court of equity are closed to one tainted with unfairness or injustice relative to the matter in which he seeks reliefMinnesota knew the player was under a moral obligation to play for St. Louis when they induced him to repudiate his agreement Minnesota is tainted w/ unclean hands, and has no means of judicial relief Munchak Corp. v. CunninghamThe owners and operators of a basketball club could not enforce an exclusive services provision in player’s contract because they allegedly had “unclean hands”Player negotiated w/ owner during his option year while playing for another teamAgreed to exclusively play for Owner when current k expired Holding: Competitor who solicits his competitor’s EEs, or who hires away one of his competitor’s EEs who are not under k, has committed no actionable wrong so long as the inducement to leave is not accompanied by unlawful action Player was under no obligation to his former team when he signed w/ Owner Owner had a lawful right to bid and k for his servicesDallas Cowboys v. Harris Cowboys sued to prevent player from playing for another team, but the jury ruled that player did not have exceptional or unique knowledge or skillHolding: Negative covenants will be enforced in a personal services k if the EE is a person of exception and unique knowledge, skill, and ability in performing the service called for in the k In these player k, preponderance of evidence almost always shows that player did possess exception and unique knowledge, skill, and abilityGrievance Arbitration Grievance Arbitration in Professional Sports Governed and otherwise established by the terms of k agreements, including collective bargaining (termed, “labor” arbitration)Arbitration in other contexts is “commercial” arbitrationEx. Resolution of disputes between member clubs is “commercial”Court may overturn an arbitrator’s ruling only when the arbitrator has strayed from application of the agreement and dispensed his own brand of industrial justice In disciplinary cases, arbitrator deems whether “just cause” exists to support the imposition of discipline for a particular offense, and degree of penalty imposedMLBPA v. Garvey Player filed a claim requesting compensation for injuries due to collusion. The court of appeals overturned an arbitrator’s judgment and granted compensation.Holding: Courts are not authorized to usurp an arbitrator’s role by reviewing an arbitrator’s decision on the merits, resolving the dispute and barring future proceedings despite allegations that the arbitrator’s decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement. Even when the arbitrator’s decision may be properly vacated (like here), the court should vacate the award and remand for further arbitration. Serious error by the arbitrator does not justify overturning his decision when construing a k and acting w/in scope of his authority Court is not allowed to resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute on the basis of its own factual determinations Dyer v. LA Rams Player was under k to play for the Rams and sued the Rams for removing him from the active roster in violation of his k. The Rams sought to compel arbitration, as under his k. Player alleged that the k was unconscionable bc all arbitration decisions could ultimately be vested in the league commissioner Holding: When deciding whether to compel or deny arbitration, courts confine their inquiry to a few threshold issues and do not scrutinize the agreed-upon arbitration provisions for general fairness. Possibility of Commissioner intervention was a remote – indeed speculative – possibility and did not preclude enforcement of the arbitration provision Morris v. NY Football Giants Player disputed the amount of salary he was due for pre-season services following termination of his k; Giants sought to compel arbitration on the issue. Morris claimed the arbitrations clause was unenforceable adhesion kHolding: Where K were fairly negotiated and the arbitration clause was not unreasonably favorable to one side, an arbitration clause is enforceable Player was highly paid, sophisticated athlete w/ considerable bargaining power and represented by experienced counsel – bound to kNordstrom v. NLRBTeam challenged the award of back pay made by the NLRB Player unlawfully released from his k to play with the Seahawks bc he engaged in union related activities; Team disputes amount of back pay awarded Holding: The NLRB is authorized to award back pay in order to remedy the effects of unlawful discrimination – supported by substantial evidence Injury Grievance Arbitration – Summary Baseball Salary Arbitration Single arbitrator selects either the offer of the club or players, considering relevant evidence as specified in the collective bargaining agreement (final offer process)Each side submits its offer or demand in the form of a one-year nonguaranteed salary figure – no compromise or other modification to the figures No opinion is released, just the result Player or team can initiate the process, player may refuse to arbitrate and the matter is removed from arbitration Generally, players w/ at least 3 years of major league service, however accumulated, but with less than 6 years experience are eligible for arbitration Players w/ 6 or more years who do not qualify for free agency, may elect arbitration Part III: Negotiation of Sports ContractsNegotiation TheoryStructure of the Conflict The more one party receives, the less the other receives or the more the other gives Stereotypical sale scenarios is often used to depict a zero-sum game Both parties attempt to ascertain the other’s “reservation price” (min/max amounts)Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)The standard against which any proposed settlement is measured Deal must be better than the BANTA in lieu of the agreement Otherwise, the deal is unfavorable to your client Knowing of the BATNA of your client protects against a bad deal; essential to negotiateShadow of the Law The uncertainty of litigation exists as an incentive to bargain rather than adjudicate Dynamics of negotiation reflect the structure of the process established by the law Negotiation of the Player-Team ContractShadow of the Law The CBA controls in any conflict with the uniform/standard player kThe uniform player k is paramount to the league constitutions and governing docsEconomic Realities Economics of the leagues and of respective teams set the boundaries for employment negotiations between players and management Attorneys negotiating for players or ballclubs must learn the parameters of the sport Use of Player Association Resources by Player Agent An efficient agreement cannot be reached unless both parties possess and utilize adequate data, according to traditional negotiation theory Salary MattersRepresentatives of both parties to the negotiation must possess complete data concerning the salary structure established by thee CBA Bonuses Signing or reporting bonusRoster bonusIncentive and honor bonusPart VI-I: Labor Relations In Professional SportsCollective Bargaining – GenerallyCollective BargainingProcess by which a group of workers of an industry negotiate as a collective whole w/ the management to determine working conditions, benefits, and salary of the industry Governed by the National Labor Relations ActNLRAWorkers involved in interstate commerce, including pro teams, covered by NLRASection 7 provides three rights of labor relation:Right to self organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizationsThe right to bargain collectively through representative of own choosingRight to engage in concerted activities for EE’s mutual aid or protection Unionize, collective bargaining, pressure tactics, etc…Scope of Bargaining under NLRAIncludes wages, hours, and working conditionsPay, fringe benefits, bonuses Time spent on the jobWork rules, safety, and seniority These are mandatory subjects of bargaining and must be negotiated in good faithAntitrust Law, Labor, and the Nonstatutory Exemption Statutory Labor Exemption Removes from the coverage of the antitrust laws certain legitimate, albeit anticompetitive, union activities bc they are favored by federal labor policy Protected activities include secondary picketing and group boycotts Union activities in furtherance of its own interests are exempt from reach of antitrust laws Statutory exemption does not extend to agreements or actions between unions and non-labor groups, including EmployersNon-Statutory Labor Exemption Excepts certain anticompetitive union-employer activities from antitrust liabilityUnion-ER agreement must meet 3 requirements to qualify for exemption:Restraint of trade primarily affects only the parties to the CBAAgreement concerns a mandatory subject of collective bargaining Agreement is a bona fide arm-length bargaining Nonstatutory labor exemption continues not only beyond the expiration of the current CBA, but also beyond the impasse in labor negotiationsLabor Relations Issues Brown v. Pro Football Brown alleged that PF violated the Sherman Act in negotiating with the players union when the PF club owners agreed among themselves to implement their last best bargaining offer Holding: Antitrust liability is waived for restraints on competition imposed through the collective bargaining process, past impasse, so long as the restraints operate primarily in a labor market characterized by collective bargaining Football players must abide by the same rules as organized workers (labor laws)Implicit antitrust exemption applies to the ER conduct here bc that conduct took place during and immediately after a collective bargaining negotiationOnly by an act of decertification of the union are workers able to utilize antitrustMackey v. NFLMackey alleged that the NFL’s Rozelle Rule was invalid and its enforcement unreasonably restrained trade Rule required that whenever a player signed a k w/ a different club, Commissioner would select and award a player of the acquiring team to the former club of the player Holding: Restraint of competition does not violate the law if it is justified by legitimate business purposes, and is no more restrictive than necessary Rozelle Rule unreasonably restrained trade, more restrictive than necessary to fulfill club’s alleged need to recoup player development costs Robertson v. NBARobertson alleged that a proposed merger of the NBA and ABA would violate Sherman Holding: Activities of ERs are not exempt from application of the antitrust laws, only labor or union activities are exemptSince the practices under attack here are not mandatory subjects of bargaining and the NBA had not acted jointly with any labor organization, it would not be covered by the labor exemption Merger was anticompetitive and halted Arbitration between MLBPA and ClubsChanges to Rules 3 and 4 were inconsistent w/ the bargain the parties made in 1990Amendments are violative of the pledge embodied in Article XVIII, cannot standMakes no difference whether the draft rules are mandatory or only a permissive subject of bargaining Whatever Board law may be with respect to the basis for finding an unfair labor practice, the Clubs have no contractual right to change a subject of bargaining by amendment of the ML rules, even if the subject is permissive As long as the k link between draft choice compensation and free agency continues, unilateral changes in the draft rules are permissible only when the Association, after due notice of the proposed change as Article XVIII requires, fails to object Silverman v. MLB Player RelationsMLBPA sought an injunction against Major League owners alleging that they committed unfair labor practices by taking unilateral action to eliminate the free agency system and arbitration Holding: Issues regarding the free agency system and salary arbitration are mandatory parts of the collective bargaining process between MLB players and ownersMandatory issues require bargaining in good faith, permissive subjects are notMandatory subjects include wages, hours, and other t&c of employment Clarett v. NFLSA tried to bypass NFL eligibility rules and enter the draft after his sophomore year, before the prerequisite 3 years out of HS had been met Because CBA creates relationship between NFL and NFLPA that prohibits teams from negotiating directly with players, so Clarett claimed this reduced the competitive market and violated antitrustHolding: Eligibility rules are immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exceptions and can only be scrutinized under labor lawIf NFLPA wanted to change eligibility, they could have done so in CBAPart IV-II: League Decision Making & Commissioner Power Sports League Operations – Fundamental Characteristics League-Club RelationshipClubs of a league are joined together, and with the league, pursuant to the terms of a Constitution and By-lawsEnjoy a contractual relationship and are governed by the law of torts in their interactions, including decisions made by league directorsTraditional approach of litigants ad the resulting judicial scrutiny focuses on contract and tort claims, including fiduciary duties League constituent members possess distinct duties to protect market opportunities of the league as a whole, as well as protect individual club operations Baseball Antitrust ExemptionCurt Flood Act of 1998MLBPA and MLB encouraged Congress to seek removal of the exemption as it relates to major league labor markets Exemption originally held that baseball was not subject to reach of the antitrust laws, bc it was in the business of giving exhibitions, no interstate commerceRemoval of the exemption in this context enables MLB players to enjoy the same rights under antitrust laws as do other professional athletes Rights of non-baseball pro athletes was established in Brown, where the non-statutory labor exemption compels organized labor to rely on labor laws, not the antitrust laws in bargaining after expiration of a CBA and past impasseOnly by an act of decertification of the union are workers able to utilize antitrustExpressly removed the exemption in the limited area of major league labor relationsFlood v. KuhnPlayer challenged pro baseball’s reserve system as violative of federal antitrust lawsPlayer had been traded without his consent, filed suit against commissioner Holding: Professional baseball is a business, and it is engaged in interstate commerceThough recognizing baseball as a business, Court found that baseball’s exemption from federal antitrust, is entitled benefit of stare decisis Remedy for player’s cause of action is congressional, not judicial, but congress has not shown any intention for baseball’s reserve system to reach antitrustCongress expressly removed the exemption in baseball labor relations under the Curt Flood Act of 1998 Piazza v. MLB (1993)Investor unsuccessfully applied to MLB to buy a baseball team to relocate to Tampa, FLWhen defamatory remarks were made about Piazza, deal was never approved, and he sued alleging constitutional and antitrust law violationsMLB claimed it was exempt from antitrust liabilityHolding: Baseball is exempt from antitrust liability only in regard to the reserve system Since the reserve system is not an issue in this case, MLB is not exempt from antitrust in this case Baseball is considered a business under intestate commerce, but exemption created for its reserve system – until CFA of 1998League Decision Marking GenerallyPrivate Sports Leagues function as Private Associations Courts are reluctant to scrutinize actions of private associations, except where the leage activities are deemed to lack fundamental fairness, or are considered arbitrary and capricious Leagues must conduct the decision process according to the terms of the leagues’ governing documents League Decision Making – Membership League Approval Processes ensure that:Member club operations are adequately capitalized Pro forma budgets are reasonably projected New ownership and club are otherwise economically secureOwners are of sound moral character and compatible w/ the league Morsani v. MLBMorsani claimed that MLB tortuously interfered with advantageous baseball and contractual relationships and had exceeded the scope of their approval rights in connection with Morsani’s attempt to acquire a MLB team in Tampa, FLHolding: The privilege to interfere in a k because of a financial interest carries with it the obligation to employ means that are not improper Privilege to interfere w/ a 3rd party’s conduct, however, does not include the purposeful causing of a breach of k – threats, intimidation, conspiratorial conductMLB exceeded its legitimate scopeNO Pelicans v. NAPBL NO Baseball alleged that the NAPBL violated antitrust law when it improperly ignored its own rules in denying territorial rights NO Baseball claimed it had been awarded territorial rights and that NPBL acted intentionally, arbitrarily, and capriciously when it violated its own rules and awarded rights to another team Holding: Courts will not interfere with the internal judgments of a private association, except in cases where the action complained of was arbitrary, capricious, or unjustly discriminatory – genuine issue of material fact Piazza v. MLB (2)Piazza alleged that MLB violated antitrust law by restraining competition in the baseball team franchise market Piazza application to purchase the SF Giants was denied by MLB, Alleged that MLB interfered directly and substantially w/ competition in the team franchise market w/ intent to monopolize and restrain competition in that marketHolding: Where unique, particularized injury to an individual is identified in a complaint, the individual is entitled to seek damages to redress the injury received as a result of his alleged illegal exclusion from a market Piazza did not allege damages to the partnership entity, but sought to redress his own allegedly unlawful exclusion from competing ina relevant market Court must focus on the nexus between the antitrust violation and the plaintiff’s harm and on whether the harm was a type for which Congress provides a remedy Levin v. NBALevin claimed that the NBA violated antitrust when it rejected his application to buy the Boston Celtics team Holding: Where the action attacked has neither an anti-competitive intent nor effect, that conduct is not violative of antitrust laws Exclusion from membership did not have an anti-competitive effect nor an effect on public interest League Decision Making – RelocationLeague approval processes are designed to assure that: Potential relocation sites posses adequate demographic for stability Does not exacerbate travel and scheduling demands Does not encroach upon existing territorial rights Does not undermine geographic diversity required for league wide marketing Contractual and moral duties to cities, including loyalty, is satisfied LA Coliseum Commission v. NFL LA Coliseum Commission claimed that the NFL violated the antitrust laws when it passed a rule requiring approval by the members of the League for a team to move into another team’s home territoryHolding: To w/stand antitrust, restrictions on team movement should be more closely tailored to serve the needs inherent in producing a product and in competing w/ others Some sort of procedural mechanism is necessary to allow a team desiring a move to present its case, but the NFL made no showing that the transfer of the Raiders would have any harmful effectNFL is a single entity and the rule was an “unreasonable restraint on trade,” which is a unique question of fact. NBA v. SDC BasketballNBA contended that ti could prevent the SDC from moving to LA under its franchise movement rule Holding: The question of whether a sport league’s relocation rule unreasonably restrains trade is a question of fact, not a question of lawPlaintiff attacking a relocation rule must show the rule is intended to harm or unreasonably restrains competition In order to support summary judgment for SDC, rule must either be void as a matter of law, or have no genuine issues of fact to support the NBASt. Louis Convention Commission v. NFLSLCC alleged that the NFL violated the Sherman Act and was guilty of tortious interference with contract bc its relocation rules created a one-buyer market Alleged that the NFL relocation rules created an atmosphere where teams were unwilling to relocate and led to SLCC having to pay large relocation fees to gain approval of the move Holding: Jury may not rest its verdict on an expert’s conclusion w/o some underlying facts and reasons, or a logical inferential process to support the expert’s opinionNo evidence to support a finding that there were teams that were actually able and desiring to bid, but were prevented from doing itWithout any evidence tending to show that an expert’s economic model actually applied to NFL and the SLCC efforts to obtain a team, testimony is not sufficient to create a jury question on issue of causation League Decision Making – Merchandising/BroadcastingNFL Properties v. Dallas CowboysNFL Properties alleged that the Cowboys had impermissibly exploited NFL club marks, by allegedly allowing sponsors to unlawfully use NFLP marks, which were exclusively licensed to NFLPHolding: Where a party has made unilateral agreements w/ the direct competitor of lawful exclusive sponsors and licensees, it has made impossible for the licensor to honor its contractual obligations Cowboys have tortiously and intentionally interfered w/ NFLP’s kCowboys used the NFLP marks and its own marks in a manner which is likely to confuse the public as to NFL’s sponsorship or approval of certain products, creating a cause of action under the Lanham Act American Needle v. NFLNFL signed an exclusive apparel licensing deal with Reebok International. American Needle, which had individual licensing deals with NFL teams, sued, arguing the NFL’s exclusive deal with Reebok violated antitrust rules. NFL argued that it is a single entity with 32 teams that compete with each other in football but not in business, where the teams collectively compete with other sports and forms of entertainmentAmerican Needle countered by arguing that the league was actually a collection of 32 independent entities — i.e., all the teams.Holding: Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act applies to the NFL, and any unilateral decision made by the NFL that affect all the teams shall be viewed under the “Rule of Reason” for antitrust purposesUnder the “Rule of Reason,” a lower court has to examine all of the circumstances to determine if and to what degree the action is anticompetitiveChicago Professional Sports LP v. NBAChicago Bulls argued that the NBA’s licensing fees for TV broadcasting of games were excessive and anticompetitive NBA rule limited telecasts to the team’s home markets Holding: When acting in the broadcast market the NBA is closer to a single firm than to a group of independent firms Chicago must establish that the NBA possessed power in a relevant market and that its exercise of that power has injured consumers League v. League – MonopolyRelevant QuestionWhether the dominant league has unfairly prevented competition to gain the market position Attack from parties external to league operations usually focuses on Section 2 of the Sherman Act, where must provePlaintiff must prove that the D possesses monopoly power and misused it Plaintiff must establish the relevant product market and geographic market to prove existence of monopoly power D actions are considered to qualify as misuse of monopoly power where the actions illegally exclude or prevent competition AFL v. NFLAFL alleged that the NFL monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and conspired to monopolize, major league professional football Alleged the NFL’s predominant intent in granting franchises to certain cities was to destroy the AFLHolding: Where a party does not have the power to prevent or unreasonably restrict competition, it is not liable for monopolizations NFL did not have the power to exclude the AFL from adequate TV outlets or to prevent the AFL from signing an adequate number of qualified players Predominant intent of NFL owners in granting certain franchises was to avoid competition for business purposes USFL v. NFLThe USFL claimed that the NFL had coerced TV networks not to contract with the USFL and had conspired to monopolize professional football Holding: Mere solicitation of governmental action through legislative processes, even though the sole purpose is to restrain competition, is an activity which is fully protected by the First Amendment and is immune from Sherman Act liabilityWhile disparagement complied with the power to exclude competition may violate the Sherman Act, dissemination of negative information regarding a competitor, unaccompanied by misstatements of fact, do not When the NFL presented its viewpoint to city bodies deciding whether or not to grant the USFL stadium access, it was immune from Sherman Act liability, as there were no specific allegations of falsity or misstatements of fact in USFL allegations of disparagement Authority of League CommissionersCharles O. Finley, Inc. v. Kuhn After Finley, the owner of the Oakland A’s, sold the k rights to the services of 3 of his players, Commissioner Kuhn disapproved the assignments of the k’s as inconsistent with the best interests of baseballHolding: The commissioner has the authority to determine whether any act, transaction, or practice is not w/in the best interests of baseball, and upon such determination, to take whatever preventive or remedial action he deems appropriate, whether or not the act, transaction, or practice complies with ML rules or involves moral turpitude As commissioner he was vested w/ the broad authority to be pro baseball’s umpire and governor, not the judiciaryCommissioner acted in good faith in a manner that he determined to be within the best interests of baseballPart V: Torts and SportsLiability of One Participant to Another Borque v. DuplechinB alleged that D violated the rules of softball when he negligently collided with B, causing him serious injury Holding: Participant in a game or sport assumes all of the risks incidental to that particular activity which are obvious and foreseeable Participant does not assume the risk of unexpected or unsportsmanlike conduct by other players Nabozny v. BarnhillN claimed that B negligently kicked him during a soccer match Holding: Reckless disregard for the safetly of other players cannot be excused Question for jury whether B’s behavior was deliberate, willful, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of another player Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals H was injured during a football game against the Bengals when a Bengals player purposely hit H on the back of the head with his forearm in the heat of the momentH sued the Bengals and the other player in tort, alleging reckless misconductHolding: The general rules of football prohibit intentional punching or striking others It is enough if the actor knows that there is a strong probability that harm will occur, whether he intended injury to occur or notGauvin v. Clark G alleged that C was liable for injuries G received when playing on a college varsity hockey team Holding: Personal injury cases arising out of an athletic event must be predicated on reckless disregard of safety Participants in an athletic event owe a duty to one another to refrain from reckless misconduct and liability may result from such a breach Spectator as a PlaintiffTicket-holding spectator Invitee to whom the highest duty of care is owed Spectators assume the commonly associated risks w/ observing the sport Vicarious Liability Where spectator is injured by arguably tortious conduct of a participant ER is liable bc it is settled that a master is liable for willful and malicious acts of his servant when done in the scope of employment Guided by foreseeable participant behavior Throwing a ball into the stands or a duty to control crowds – foreseeable Assaulting a criticizing spectator – not foreseeable Traditionally, owner of a sports complex has only a limited duty protect the spectator from common hazards of the game Spectator assumes the inherent risks of attending a sporting event so long as the owner of the ballpark does not unduly enhance those risks Spectator Denied AdmissionOwners broad power to exclude any person for any reason is restricted, so that patrons are not arbitrarily excluded Medical Assistance to Spectators Failure to provide adequate emergency medical assistance to an injured spectator provides a viable cause of action, at least to the extent it can be shown that the injuries were aggravated by lack of such care Medical Malpractice in AthleticsRosensweig v. State The estate of a boxer who died after a knockout in the ring alleged that the physician who had examined him prior to the fight was negligent Physician certified the fighter was fit to enter the ring after being severly beaten in the ring twice beforeHolding: Physician is not negligent if there is no official rule requiring a compulsory lay-off of a fighter who has received a severe beating No evidence of prio brain injury when the standard exam was done Immediate proximate cause of the injury resulting in death was a severe blow to the head that could have caused death, irrespective of previous condition Colombo v. Sweanhaka Central HS District Student challenged a physician’s recommendation that he be excluded from competing in high school contact sports (due to a hearing disability)Holding: Determination of an administrative body, made on rational basis, should not be set aside unless it was arbitrary or capricious Medical diagnosis of the examining physician was a valid exercise of judgment Not arbitrary/capricious bc there was serious risk of injury to him/others players Intentional Interference w/ Contractual Relations World Football League v. Dallas Cowboys Cowboys alleged that the WFL was raiding its players, inquiring as to whether they would be interest in receiving offers at the expiration of their kHolding: The signing of contracts for future services would not in itself be tortious interference with obligations under present contracts An injunction restraining the signing of such future k would be an unreasonable restraint on the freedom of k of the players and their prospective ERsNE Patriots v. University of Colorado When the head coach of NE breached his k bc he had agreed to go to UC to coach, NE obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining UC from employing him, and suspended himUC appealed, claiming NE had unclean handsHolding: In order to be barred from relief under the “unclean hands” doctrine, “unclean hands” must refer to the controversy in issue NE has right to relief bc unclean hands not specific to this transaction ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download