On November 21, 2014, 15 professors of antitrust law at leading U.S. universities submitted an amicus brief in the O'Bannon v. NCAA 9th Circuit appeal in support of the NCAA. They have an interest in the proper development of antitrust jurisprudence, and they agree that the court below misapplied the “less restrictive alternative” prong of the rule of reason inquiry for assessing the legality of restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. They are concerned that the district court’s approach to the antitrust rule of reason, if affirmed, would grant undue authority to antitrust courts to regulate the details of organizational rules, and would also undermine the NCAA’s goal of amateurism in collegiate athletics, a goal that courts have recognized universally as valid and important — and in which the undersigned, as academics themselves, are deeply interested.
Arthur, Thomas C. and Aviram, Amitai and Cavanagh, Edward D. and Contreras, Jorge L. and Crane, Daniel A. and Farmer, Susan Beth and Hovenkamp, Herbert and Hylton, Keith N. and Jacobs, Michael S. and Meese, Alan J. and Mehra, Salil K. and Page, William Hepburn and Roberts, Gary Raymond and Sokol, D. Daniel and Volokh, Alexander (Sasha), Brief of Amici Curiae Antitrust Law Professors in O'Bannon v. NCAA (November 21, 2014). University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 15-24, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2528881 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2528881
Comparative Political Economy: Regulation eJournal
Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic
FOLLOWERS
62
PAPERS
22,361
Feedback
Feedback to SSRN
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 212 448 2500 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.