Antitrust Laws In Sports

1887 Words4 Pages

The MLB is exempted from antitrust laws and that started years and years ago. Baseball is exempt because the government and the court system view baseball as just a game, not a business. Baseball continues to enjoy being immune to antitrust laws because the government is unwilling to overturn legislation from decades ago that stated baseball was for fan enjoyment not a business. In 1903 it was ruled that players could not shop their service around to other teams to increase their salaries. The team they played on owned that player’s service for their entire career. The team could sell or trade that player but the player could not simply sign with another team on his own accord. In 1922 the Supreme Court heard the court case of Federal Baseball …show more content…

NCAA, O’Bannon filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the NCAA. Stating that it was a violation of antitrust laws that Division I programs continue to use images of its former student athletes for commercial purposes. O’Bannon argues that upon graduation, a former player is entitled to compensation from the NCAA and the school for using their image and likeness for commercial gain. The NCAA, however, maintained that paying athletes would violate the idea of amateurism in sports. District Judge Claudia Wilken found that the NCAA’s rules and bylaws were a violation of antitrust laws. She ordered that the school should be allowed to pay for full cost of attendance to scholarship athletes, cover cost of living expenses that were not covered by scholarships in the past. In this ruling athletes are not paid to play but have most financial flexibility when deciding what school to …show more content…

Major league Soccer. I am not sure what league structure the PQL has decided to use, but since it is a new league the single entity structure might be best suited for the PQL. The MLS currently uses the single entity structure and it is important to learn from them how to use the structure properly. The MLS is responsible for signing all players and determining each players wage and what team that player will play on. In this particular case the plaintiffs argued that the MLS and its investors were acting as a single entity and were thereby lessening the value of its players’ services and thus, trying to monopolize the Division 1 soccer player market. The MLS argued that its investors were acting together so it’s impossible to conspire against each other. The case went to the district court and ruled in favor of the MLS. Since soccer is played around the world and there are many different leagues it was determined that the MLS was not a monopoly, that every player has the opportunity to shop their talents to other teams around the

Open Document