- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,388
- Reaction Score
- 46,789
This would be an awfully tough antitrust case.
Here's the problem: According to the U.S. Supreme Court, NCAA football is "an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all." -NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, at 101 (1979).
UConn would have to do a lot more than point to the existence of various horizontal restraints that cause harm as to UConn. Behavior that would, in other industries, be condemned as per se illegal is subject to the rule of reason in the sports context. Shouting "collusion" or "group boycott" is not going to get you anywhere. Every conference is, by definition, a group boycott of other teams. And members of every conference must meet and agree on schedules and rules that all will follow.
To successfully challenge the P5, UConn or another plaintiff would have to demonstrate that a particular restraint or group of restraints is unreasonable -- which would mean demonstrating that they have the effect of (or the clear purpose of) restricting the supply of top tier college football contests. (This would involve defining "top tier" P5 football as a separate product market from G5 football, which while possible would nonetheless be an uphill battle.)
Technically, a plaintiff could succeed just by demonstrating that the effect of the P5 agreements is to restrict the supply of "top tier" football -- but that would involve forecasting the future, which a court would be reluctant to do in such a complex industry. Thus, as a practical matter, a suit is unlikely to be successful without clear evidence of anticompetitive intent (e.g. "starving" non P5 schools of money needed to compete at a "top tier" level.) I would not be at all surprised if this is, in fact, the motivating force behind much of what the P5 is doing -- but finding sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was a conscious plan or scheme (and not just something one particular AD wrote in an internal email) would be extremely difficult.
Those restraints alluded to by the Supreme Court could be anything. It could refer to scholarship limits, transfer limits, it could refer to the treatment of student athletes as amateurs, etc. In any case, you'll have a redefinition of terms, especially 35 or 40 years into the future. For instance, the NCAA was shocked at the Chicago Labor Relations board for diverging so far away from the ruling that favored Brown University over a decade ago. I happen to agree with the NCAA on this one. Either the Brown ruling was wrong and the Northwestern ruling was right, or vice versa. You can't separate the two as the Chicago Board did. This is why one of two things will happen. Either the Chicago decision will be overturned or you will see unions nationwide revisiting the Brown U. decision in light of the Chicago decision.
In other words, when it comes to universities and its students/employees and sports, absolutely nothing is settled.