A Miser’s Rule of Reason: The Supreme Court and Antitrust Limits on Student Athlete Compensation

38 Pages Posted: 8 Jul 2021 Last revised: 17 Oct 2022

See all articles by Herbert Hovenkamp

Herbert Hovenkamp

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School

Date Written: October 14, 2022

Abstract

The unanimous Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Alston is its most important probe of antitrust’s rule of reason in decades. The decision implicates several issues, including the role of antitrust in labor markets, how antitrust applies to institutions that have an educational mission as well as involvement in a large commercial enterprise, and how much leeway district courts should have in creating decrees that contemplate ongoing administration.

The Court accepted what has come to be the accepted framework: the plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of competitive harm. Then the burden shifts to the defendant to produce a justification and, if it produces one, the plaintiff will have a chance to show a less restrictive alternative. While the Court has articulated this three-stage inquiry several times, it has almost always loaded all the important proof requirements into the first stage, with the result that plaintiffs nearly always lose. This is an irrational approach to decision making that reflects a deep anti-enforcement bias. In Alston, however, the plaintiffs finally broke out of that box, but only because the practice itself was a nearly naked cartel. So is the Court now ready to develop a more enforcement-neutral approach to antitrust’s rule of reason?

Most rule of reason cases do not involve naked or nearly naked cartels. They are concerned with production or research joint ventures, standard setting, or other agreements whose effects are more complex. Alston was the unique rule of reason case in which the challenged practice was close to a naked cartel. In any other setting it would have been governed by the per se rule but for an idiosyncratic history that compelled the rule of reason.

If plaintiffs can successfully navigate the “three-step” rule of reason case only when the challenged restraint is little more than collusion, then the rule of reason is not doing its job. In most rule of reason challenges, including those brought by the government, the plaintiff’s prima facie case depends on market evidence that supports reasonable inferences of competitive harm. By contrast, when the burden shirts, the defense typically depends on evidence about its own conduct and the rationales for it. In terms of decisional quality, cases that raise an inference of competitive harm will be more accurately resolved at the second stage rather than the first one. This does not mean that trivial claims or claims against firms that clearly lack power should go forward. It does suggest, however, that at the first stage the plaintiff should bear a smaller burden.

Keywords: antitrust, rule of reason, NCAA, Judicial Decrees, cartels, joint ventures, labor antitrust

Suggested Citation

Hovenkamp, Herbert, A Miser’s Rule of Reason: The Supreme Court and Antitrust Limits on Student Athlete Compensation (October 14, 2022). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 21-23, NYU Annual Survey of American Law, Vol. 78, No. 1, 2022, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3879580 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3879580

Herbert Hovenkamp (Contact Author)

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School ( email )

3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
319-512-9579 (Phone)

University of Pennsylvania - The Wharton School ( email )

3641 Locust Walk
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6365
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
257
Abstract Views
1,118
Rank
232,783
PlumX Metrics