Higher education market
- Pages: 2
- Word count: 443
- Category: College Education
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
Haywood-Granted an injunction during the litigation process which allowed him to play for Seattle and forbade the NBA to take sanctions against the Seattle team.
In flood v Kuhn the main argument presented was that of stare decisis. This case used the prior cases as a precedent to help determine the ruling. Another point was that baseball is a separate organized sport in which the government should not get involved with matters due to it being an established aberration.
-The Ninth Circuit agreed in some ways and disagreed in others when interpretation Justice Stevens dicta as holding enough merit to constitute claims relating to the Sherman Act. That the amateurism rules violated this Antitrust Act. The Court disagreed with the way the Board of Regents was interpreted by the NCAA in that they found the NCAA did not have enough power with its media rights. The Court in turn thought the NCAA should be stripped of its rights to control. Also, the plaintiffs were able to prove injuries by stating the video gaming industry would most likely pay for the right to use their names with its products.
1.The relevant market for this case would be that of the college education market and the group licensing market. Regarding the college education market, the court found that very few people who can play FBS football or Division 1 opt out to play and since there are no professional sports leagues available to these athletes out of high school. Now when dealing with the group licensing project, the court placed three submarkets for which players could be profitably licensed. These were for live game broadcasts, sport video games, and rebroadcasts of games. Since TV networks often attempt to obtain to acquire these rights to use the player in broadcasts that there was a demand for these rights.
2.The valid procompetitive justifications are that the NCAA’s joint venture stance did not uphold because they were not a selling entity. Also, that the NCAA could not convincingly prove that having different broadcasting times would have any detrimental effects on live attendance. Finally, that the competitive balance of the NCAA would not be affected by the restraints on media.
3.The court agreed with the NCAA. The court rules that the NCAA aid cap is not a restraint. That according to the NCAA’s standards since student-athletes are amateurs as long as any money that they receive covers educational purposes. The court did not agree that the rules permitting colleges paying athlete cash compensations and the rule stopping colleges from paying athletes are both equally effective in preserving demand and advancing amateurism.