Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Who should pay for retired players medical bills?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaybadger82" data-source="post: 499780" data-attributes="member: 6211"><p>Not sure why an "entertainment business" exception makes sense: If you were a musician and every performance venue in the Los Angeles market formed an agreement not to give you more than 10% of ticket revenue or $10,000 per show, that's a pretty blatant Sherman Act violation. The musician's performance may not be "an essential product" but it seems like he deserves to obtain the best price the market will yield for his services.</p><p></p><p>(1) A couple practical matters: no plaintiff legitimately expects to win on its claim of a Sherman Act violation on the basis of actual monopoly. It's too easy to expand the boundaries of any market in order to introduce competing actors. For example, one could say MLB is not a monopoly because it competes with all other professional entertainment sports, expanding the market from "professional baseball" to "professional sports." The Sherman Act isn't so much about breaking up actual monopolies as it is about curbing market activity that restrains trade/commerce.</p><p>(2) Follow-up on the USFL case: in addition to the $3 in nominal damages awarded by the jury, the NFL was forced to pay $5.5 million in legal fees to the USFL plaintiffs. Because the NFL was in violation of the Sherman Act, even if a jury of fans didn't want to eviscerate them over it on behalf of an unsympathetic plaintiff that had already gone defunct.</p><p>(3) Although the USFL litigation offers an interesting story, these sort of jury decisions hold little significance from a legal perspective. Today many (if not most) antitrust cases are decided from the bench because the facts and issues are generally seen as too complicated for a lay jury. (I often think they're too complicated for me.) In the USFL case, the finding of a Sherman Act violation with no actual damages borders on logically inconsistent. Seems to reflect the widespread understanding that the NFL engages in monopolistic practices but it's tolerated because there's no other way to set up a fair competitive environment necessary for the sport of football.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Part of what the Sherman Act prohibits are "attempts to monopolize." See (1) above. Does the NFL completely meet the Webster's Dictionary definition of a monopoly? -Not if you're going to point to "competitors" like the UFL and AFL. But from an antitrust law perspective, the NFL certainly violates the Sherman Act through monopolistic activities that restrain commerce.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaybadger82, post: 499780, member: 6211"] Not sure why an "entertainment business" exception makes sense: If you were a musician and every performance venue in the Los Angeles market formed an agreement not to give you more than 10% of ticket revenue or $10,000 per show, that's a pretty blatant Sherman Act violation. The musician's performance may not be "an essential product" but it seems like he deserves to obtain the best price the market will yield for his services. (1) A couple practical matters: no plaintiff legitimately expects to win on its claim of a Sherman Act violation on the basis of actual monopoly. It's too easy to expand the boundaries of any market in order to introduce competing actors. For example, one could say MLB is not a monopoly because it competes with all other professional entertainment sports, expanding the market from "professional baseball" to "professional sports." The Sherman Act isn't so much about breaking up actual monopolies as it is about curbing market activity that restrains trade/commerce. (2) Follow-up on the USFL case: in addition to the $3 in nominal damages awarded by the jury, the NFL was forced to pay $5.5 million in legal fees to the USFL plaintiffs. Because the NFL was in violation of the Sherman Act, even if a jury of fans didn't want to eviscerate them over it on behalf of an unsympathetic plaintiff that had already gone defunct. (3) Although the USFL litigation offers an interesting story, these sort of jury decisions hold little significance from a legal perspective. Today many (if not most) antitrust cases are decided from the bench because the facts and issues are generally seen as too complicated for a lay jury. (I often think they're too complicated for me.) In the USFL case, the finding of a Sherman Act violation with no actual damages borders on logically inconsistent. Seems to reflect the widespread understanding that the NFL engages in monopolistic practices but it's tolerated because there's no other way to set up a fair competitive environment necessary for the sport of football. Part of what the Sherman Act prohibits are "attempts to monopolize." See (1) above. Does the NFL completely meet the Webster's Dictionary definition of a monopoly? -Not if you're going to point to "competitors" like the UFL and AFL. But from an antitrust law perspective, the NFL certainly violates the Sherman Act through monopolistic activities that restrain commerce. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
DABIGZ
Schultz
rmontro
Curly Calhoun
Latest posts
R
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: rmontro
6 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
34 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
35 minutes ago
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:46 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 9:23 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Who should pay for retired players medical bills?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
