North Am. Soccer League v. NAT. FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Decision Date | 17 November 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 78 Civ. 4560-CSH.,78 Civ. 4560-CSH. |
Citation | 505 F. Supp. 659 |
Parties | NORTH AMERICAN SOCCER LEAGUE; Orange County Pro Soccer; Chicago World Soccer Inc.; Caribous of Colorado, Inc.; Michigan Soccer, Limited; Houston Professional Soccer Club, Ltd.; Aztec Professional Soccer Club; Memphis Soccer Club, Inc.; Minnesota Soccer, Inc.; Lipton Professional Soccer, Inc.; Cosmos Soccer Club, Inc.; Oakland Stompers, Ltd.; Philadelphia Soccer Associates; Oregon Soccer, Inc.; Blue & Gold, Ltd.; San Diego Professional Soccer Club; San Jose Earthquakes, Limited; Tampa Bay Soccer Club, Inc.; Pro Soccer, Ltd.; Tulsa Roughnecks, Ltd.; Vancouver Professional Soccer Club, Ltd.; and Washington Diplomats Soccer Club, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; San Francisco 49ers; Oakland Raiders; New England Patriots Football Club, Inc.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club, Inc.; The Five Smiths, Inc.; Baltimore Football, Inc.; Highwood Service, Inc.; Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc.; Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.; Cleveland Browns, Inc.; Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Inc.; Empire Sports, Inc., The Detroit Lions, Inc.; Greenbay Packers, Inc.; Houston Oilers, Inc.; Los Angeles Rams Football Co.; New Orleans Saints; New York Football Giants, Inc.; New York Jets Football Club, Inc.; Leonard H. Tose, d/b/a Philadelphia Eagles Football Club; Pittsburgh Steelers Sports; Chargers Football Company; Chicago Cardinals Football Club; Pro-Football, Inc.; and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for plaintiffs; Ira M. Millstein, James W. Quinn, Irwin H. Warren, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Kenneth L. Steinthal, New York City, of counsel.
Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City, for The National Football League and Certain NFL Teams; William E. Willis, James H. Carter, Jr., Howard D. Burnett, New York City, of counsel.
INTRODUCTION
This is a private antitrust suit, tried to the Court without a jury. Plaintiff North American Soccer League (the "NASL") is an unincorporated association of 24 professional soccer clubs located throughout the United States and Canada. The other plaintiffs are 21 of those 24 member organizations. Defendant National Football League (the "NFL") is an unincorporated association of 28 professional football clubs located throughout the United States. The other defendants are 25 of those 28 member organizations.
In October, 1978, the NFL scheduled a meeting to vote upon a proposed amendment to its by-laws which reads as follows:
This proposed by-law will hereafter be referred to as the "cross-ownership ban."
Plaintiffs allege that the cross-ownership ban, if enacted by defendants, would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Their complaint, invoking Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26, sought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin implementation of the by-law. Plaintiffs also prayed for a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, declaring the proposed cross-ownership ban, together with other actual and threatened conduct by defendants, violative of the Sherman Act, and for treble damages. Jurisdiction lay under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 22.
Defendants denied the allegations of the complaint, and asserted two counterclaims against plaintiffs, alleging Sherman Act violations on their part.
At the outset I granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, restraining defendants from enacting the proposed by-law or otherwise implementing the cross-ownership ban. 465 F.Supp. 665. The case then proceeded through discovery, preparation of a joint pre-trial order, and trial. I wish particularly to compliment counsel for both sides for meticulous preparation and able advocacy.
I now enter the following Findings of Fact, Discussion, and Conclusions of Law. Rule 52(a), F.R.Civ.P.
These findings adopt, in substantial measure, the helpful statement of agreed facts prepared by the parties in connection with the pre-trial order.
No. 1: Plaintiff North American Soccer League (the "NASL") is an unincorporated association of twenty-four (24) professional soccer clubs located throughout the United States and Canada.
No. 2: The NASL was organized in 1968 upon the merger of two predecessor soccer leagues for the purpose of promoting major league professional soccer in North America and is engaged in interstate commerce in the business of operating a professional soccer league.
No. 3: The other plaintiffs (or their successors) are 21 of the NASL member organizations (each of which is a corporation except where noted) which, at the time suit was filed, owned and operated professional soccer clubs for profit under the names and in the cities set forth below:
The NASL and these NASL member clubs are hereinafter referred to collectively as the NASL plaintiffs (while this opinion was in preparation, the Philadelphia Fury was sold to Molson Breweries of Montreal, and the Philadelphia NASL franchise transferred to the latter city).
No. 4: Defendant National Football League (the "NFL") is an unincorporated association of 28 professional football teams which is engaged in interstate commerce in the business of operating a major professional football league in the United States.
No. 5: The other defendants are 25 of the NFL...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US Football League v. NAT. FOOTBALL LEAGUE
...in which rules for the college player draft were held unreasonable under the rule of reason; (f) North American Soccer League v. National Football League, 505 F.Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y.1980) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1074, 103 S.Ct. 499, 74 L.E......
-
Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Sys., Inc. v. Exxonmobil Corp.
...League that would have prevented NFL owners from acquiring any interest in another major team sport), complaint dismissed, 505 F.Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y.1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1074, 103 S.Ct. 499, 74 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982). ......
-
North American Soccer League v. National Football League
...and accelerated growth in fan interest, media following, paid attendance, number of franchises and geographic scope...." 505 F.Supp. 659 at 666-67. With this success NASL teams have become increasingly more effective competitors of the NFL teams. The two sports are somewhat similar. Their s......
-
McNeil v. National Football League
...and, subject to various restraints, players. See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm'n, 726 F.2d at 1390; North American Soccer League, 505 F.Supp. 659, 666 (S.D.N.Y.1980); 7. NFL members located in the same geographic areas engage in direct competition for fan support, media space and local......
-
Issues in Antitrust Private Litigation: Sports Cases
...loss of professional contracts or other bonuses is too speculative to justify standing); N. Am. Soccer League v. Nat’l Football League, 505 F. Supp. 659, 690 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (NFL owners’ request for injunction to prevent NASL owners from inflating the price of a soccer team failed for lack ......
-
Table of Cases
...League v. National Football League, 465 F. Supp. 665 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), 119 North American Soccer League v. National Football League, 505 F. Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff ’ d in relevant part, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982), 97, 98, 122, 126 North American Soccer League v. National Football Le......
-
Table of Cases
...1970), 1240 North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 465 F. Supp. 665 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), 67, 123, 277, 506, 1027 North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 505 F. Supp. 659 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff ’ d in part & rev ’ d in part, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982), 460 NorthBay Healthcare Grp. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan,......
-
Private Antitrust Suits
...1564. See, e.g., Syufy Enters. v. American Multicinema, 602 F. Supp. 1466, 1468 (N.D. Cal. 1983); North Am. Soccer League v. NFL, 505 F. Supp. 659, 691 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff’d in part & rev’d in part on other grounds, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982); Locklin v. Day-Glo Color Corp., 378 F. Supp.......