Replies

Why is everyone so quick to jump on the league-as-single-firm theory? OK, so they call themselves franchisees. They are still not single entities. If they were single entities, they could not sue each other, and we know that happens - every time someone wants a better TV deal or to move locations. No, the NFL's designation does not control.

The NFL is subject to antitrust regulation - maybe USFL's damages were nominal, but they were found liable for antitrust violations. That being the case, why should an antitrust action against collectiev refusal to deal in hiring not turn on the same analysis?

Sure, a law firm can require that its hires be lawyers - not a violation of antitrust. All firms do it, but it isn't an antitrust violation - conspiracy amongst firms. States have laws setting standards for bar admissions. Last I checked, there was no state or federal law requiring 3 years out of high school for NFL participation. Isn't that classic conspiracy? It's also another thing if, due to market considerations, no firm wants to hire him, independant of collusion. Hard evidence to prove, but I think his argument is that without this rule, agreed to amongst the teams, he would find a team willing to hire. Again, kind of depends on if franchises are single firms, but how can they sue each other if they are? How did a/t liability attach in USFL?