A Professor of sports law at Tennessee lays out the basics of an anti-trust case

Submitted by BuckNekked on

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football-news/4702676-ncaa-satellite-camp-ban-antitrust-scrutiny-jim-harbaugh

I know weve talked about this subject ad nauseum but after 6 straight OT posts I figured you guys would go easy on me as this is in the news and relevant to Michigan. If its already been posted bomb away.

Justin P. Sievert, ESQ. is a professor of Sports Law at the University of Tennessee, a contributing writer on sports law and sports business for 'the Sporting News' and is licensed to practice law in Tennessee, North Carolina and Florida. His firm focuses on higher education and sports law.

In this article he sets the road map for each side in a Sherman Anti-Trust lawsuit if it ever gets that far. IMO thats probably the nuclear option only to be considered if each of the other two options fail (the rubber stamp vote by the Board of Governors and the 86 votes required with each institution voting).

In Professor Sieverts opinion there are two possible cases to be made, one against economic limits and the other against territorial restrictions. Both cases to my untrained eye look as if they could be slam dunks in a similar fashion to Law v NCAA in 1992 which put a 16k salary limit on assistant coaches.

How likely does the case get this far? And does merely publishing articles like this along with the very vocal outcry from coaches, players, recruits and fans -well anyone not in SEC country or beholden to them in some fashion- make it likely that one of the other two options pass first? Can the NCAA and SEC overcome thier hubris before they are humiliated in Federal court?

This is the first time Ive seen a lawyer who specializes in sports law address the issue so thought it was interesting and thought my friends here would too.

MGoBoard
Football

Cranky Dave

April 21st, 2016 at 7:05 PM ^

Was interesting too. Mark Emmert pledged $100k to University of Washington while he was President there. (2004-10) But still owes $49k and never responded to a request for payment in 2013, a year in which Emmert earned $1.8mm

Joined: 09/08/2012

MGoPoints: 26286

Sac Fly

April 21st, 2016 at 7:31 PM ^

His examples are shakey.  The problem is that the language is vague. It was after all writen in 1890.

You're probably not going to convince a court that interstate commerce was restricted because there really isn't anything being sold. You're also not likely to prove that the market was being restrained when the camp ban came into place because one school had hundreds of camps planned.

In fact, if you're looking at it from that view point, if the NCAA ever made it to court in an antitrust lawsuit they could just say that Jim Harbaugh and his camps had a monopoly and they put a stop to it.

Joined: 04/03/2010

MGoPoints: 5981

CalifExile

April 21st, 2016 at 9:15 PM ^

I guess you missed all the coaches who said they were planning camps. Leach, Meyers, Fitzgerald. Moreover, Even if Harbaugh were the only coach conducting camps that wouldn't establish that a monopoly existed because there is no showing that there are barriers to entry by other coaches.

Joined: 03/02/2010

MGoPoints: 12625

NRK

April 21st, 2016 at 11:21 PM ^

Not sure how familiar you are with Antitrust case law, but establishing an impact on interstate commerce is unlikely to be an issue - it is pretty easy to establish and has been in the past. The restraint on the market itself is also pretty obvious since you're restricting the ability to engage in camps. As the author points out, this is very likely to be a heavy rule of reason analysis. The points you raise on Harbaugh (along with other schools with a lot of money) being able to hold more camps in other areas are likely arguments the NCAA would raise, stating that they were attempting to make a more competitive market. That's the argument at least.

Joined: 02/20/2009

MGoPoints: 6411

cbuswolverine

April 22nd, 2016 at 11:00 AM ^

"You're also not likely to prove that the market was being restrained when the camp ban came into place because one school had hundreds of camps planned."

Holding a strong opinion while being this ill-informed rarely turns out well.

Joined: 08/14/2008

MGoPoints: 5958

LSAClassOf2000

April 21st, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^

The legislation allocates specific territories where a coach or school may work at or host a camp, which prevents them from selling their product or services anywhere but in their own territory (their own institution). These local monopolies may set their own prices and create a poorer product to the detriment of the consumer.

I don't think there would be any doubt that this would happen, the poorer product, which is why it was very nice for smaller schools to tag along at camps hosted by schools like Michigan so that they could improve said product. You would think that, if they really wanted to press such a case, you could get most of the Group Of Five schools on board with at least this portion of the argument. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130679

Dailysportseditor

April 21st, 2016 at 9:01 PM ^

rule:

(1) Market for high school football talent
(2) Market for football athletic scholarships
(3) Market for football camps
(4) Market for college football coaches

Sherman Act provides for treble damages and attorneys' fees to injured parties.

Joined: 01/14/2012

MGoPoints: 447

OC Alum91

April 21st, 2016 at 11:03 PM ^

I hope someone sends the article to the NCAA so they realize they are on shaky ground. Reminds me of Harbaugh's quote and how on point it was in highlighting the problem: "In the America I know, you can cross state borders."

Joined: 02/05/2015

MGoPoints: 1528

FLwolvfan22

April 21st, 2016 at 11:12 PM ^

He can just mention the ban to them and probably have this taken care of in a few days. Didn't Obama spur on the creation of a playoff that finally ended the rigged BCS. Obama is a B1G guy and I think was happy to see the Buckeyes at the White House instead of the usual SEC team.

Joined: 03/03/2012

MGoPoints: 6707