Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Thursday, February 28, 2013
 
New Law Review Article: "A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law"

It is with great excitement that I share the first draft of my newest law review article, "A Short Treatise on Amateurism and Antitrust Law: Why the NCAA's 'No Pay' Rules Violate Section One of the Sherman Act."

This article is intended to serve as roadmap for challenging NCAA rules that prevent student-athlete pay.  The article is currently under review by several law journals.  Reader feedback is both encouraged and appreciated.





2 Comments:

Great work on your article, however I think your analysis does not address what is perhaps one of the better defenses the NCAA has. The board of regents case even has dictum on the point. The fact that the athletes are not paid is what differentiates collegiate athletics (as a product) from say minor league baseball or any other professional sport which consumers may choose to enjoy. Thus the no pay rules are essential to the product and in effect enhance competition by providing consumers with a product that they would not otherwise have. I think the BMI v. CBS case is also on point and indicates that the Supreme Court has given substantial weight to arrangements which bring a new product into the marketplace. Since per se analysis is rarely used in today's world, I don't think it is clear that the no pay rule would not pass a rule of reason analysis because of the procompetitive benefit of bringing a new and different product for consumers to choose from. It is true that the NCAA may have "less restrictive alternatives" than a strict no pay rule, but I believe your article should address the point that in essence the no pay rules increase consumer choice.

Blogger Jeremy -- 3/01/2013 12:45 PM  


Great work on your article, however I think your analysis does not address what is perhaps one of the better defenses the NCAA has. The board of regents case even has dictum on the point. The fact that the athletes are not paid is what differentiates collegiate athletics (as a product) from say minor league baseball or any other professional sport which consumers may choose to enjoy. Thus the no pay rules are essential to the product and in effect enhance competition by providing consumers with a product that they would not otherwise have. I think the BMI v. CBS case is also on point and indicates that the Supreme Court has given substantial weight to arrangements which bring a new product into the marketplace. Since per se analysis is rarely used in today's world, I don't think it is clear that the no pay rule would not pass a rule of reason analysis because of the procompetitive benefit of bringing a new and different product for consumers to choose from. It is true that the NCAA may have "less restrictive alternatives" than a strict no pay rule, but I believe your article should address the point that in essence the no pay rules increase consumer choice.

Blogger Jeremy -- 3/01/2013 12:46 PM  


Post a Comment