The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Competition law generally requires competitors who agree on restraints of trade to justify their agreements as procompetitive when market forces create the potential for consumer exploitation. This analysis, known as the Rule of Reason (from its common law origins), does not apply to internal agreements within a single firm. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized sports league policies as agreements among club owners who control the league, rather than unilateral decisions of a single entity. Opponents of the application of the Rule of Reason continue to seek doctrinal shields against judicial review of anticompetitive sports rules, and this chapter explains why such an approach is unsound competition policy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law
PublisherOxford University Press
Pages225-236
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9780190465957
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

doctrine
Sports
competition policy
common law
club
Supreme Court
exploitation
firm
Law
market

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Ross, S. F. (2017). The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues. In The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law (pp. 225-236). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11
Ross, Stephen F. / The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues. The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. pp. 225-236
@inbook{5a3d07a580e54ea898a8a67b8e8240af,
title = "The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues",
abstract = "Competition law generally requires competitors who agree on restraints of trade to justify their agreements as procompetitive when market forces create the potential for consumer exploitation. This analysis, known as the Rule of Reason (from its common law origins), does not apply to internal agreements within a single firm. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized sports league policies as agreements among club owners who control the league, rather than unilateral decisions of a single entity. Opponents of the application of the Rule of Reason continue to seek doctrinal shields against judicial review of anticompetitive sports rules, and this chapter explains why such an approach is unsound competition policy.",
author = "Ross, {Stephen F.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "225--236",
booktitle = "The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Ross, SF 2017, The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues. in The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law. Oxford University Press, pp. 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11

The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues. / Ross, Stephen F.

The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law. Oxford University Press, 2017. p. 225-236.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues

AU - Ross, Stephen F.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Competition law generally requires competitors who agree on restraints of trade to justify their agreements as procompetitive when market forces create the potential for consumer exploitation. This analysis, known as the Rule of Reason (from its common law origins), does not apply to internal agreements within a single firm. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized sports league policies as agreements among club owners who control the league, rather than unilateral decisions of a single entity. Opponents of the application of the Rule of Reason continue to seek doctrinal shields against judicial review of anticompetitive sports rules, and this chapter explains why such an approach is unsound competition policy.

AB - Competition law generally requires competitors who agree on restraints of trade to justify their agreements as procompetitive when market forces create the potential for consumer exploitation. This analysis, known as the Rule of Reason (from its common law origins), does not apply to internal agreements within a single firm. The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized sports league policies as agreements among club owners who control the league, rather than unilateral decisions of a single entity. Opponents of the application of the Rule of Reason continue to seek doctrinal shields against judicial review of anticompetitive sports rules, and this chapter explains why such an approach is unsound competition policy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060728181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060728181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11

DO - 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11

M3 - Chapter

SP - 225

EP - 236

BT - The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -

Ross SF. The single- entity doctrine of antitrust as applied to sports leagues. In The Oxford Handbook of American Sports Law. Oxford University Press. 2017. p. 225-236 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190465957.013.11