Scandals occur regularly in college athletics.(( Ravi Lulla, 10 Worst Scandals in NCAA History, Bleacher Report (Sept. 28, 2011)) While some of the scandals are truly horrific and break society’s laws (see Jerry Sandusky), others on their face seem relatively minor.(( Jerry Sandusky’s Son Alleges Even Worse Abuse, USA Today (July 18, 2014), http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/07/18/jerry-sandusky-son-matthew-alleges-even-worse-abuse/12823231/.)) These violations generally consist of athletes breaking variety NCAA regulations, not law. Such violations include coaches holding practice for more hours than are prescribed by the rules or sending to many text messages to prospective recruits. Though some of the rules may seem frivolous,
…show more content…
Prac., Business Law Deskbook § 23:9 (Describing under per se analysis, plaintiff need prove only the existence of an illegal agreement and defendant's anticompetitive intent; anticompetitive effect is presumed.)) Under the rule of reason analysis, the defendants conduct is weighed against the procompetitive or beneficial aspects of the transaction in question. ((Id.))In other words, a court must decide whether the behavior caused a “significant injury to competition.”(( Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2001)(stating we follow the three-step framework of the Rule of Reason: “The plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the restraint produces significant anticompetitive effects within a relevant market. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must come forward with evidence of the restraint's procompetitive effects. The plaintiff must then show that any legitimate objectives can be achieved in a substantially less restrictive manner.”; See, O’Bannon, 2015 WL 5712106 at 18 Stating takes of this decision. ust Actions Relating to College or Professional Sportsven the enormous stakes of this decision. (“Instead, the NCAA makes three modest arguments about why the compensation rules do not have a significant anticompetitive effect. First, it argues that because the plaintiffs never showed that the rules reduce output in the college education market, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing a significant anticompetitive effect. Second, it argues that the rules have no anticompetitive effect because schools would not pay student-athletes anything for their NIL rights in any event, given that those rights are worth nothing. And finally, the NCAA argues that even if the district court was right
Prac., Business Law Deskbook § 23:9 (Describing under per se analysis, plaintiff need prove only the existence of an illegal agreement and defendant's anticompetitive intent; anticompetitive effect is presumed.)) Under the rule of reason analysis, the defendants conduct is weighed against the procompetitive or beneficial aspects of the transaction in question. ((Id.))In other words, a court must decide whether the behavior caused a “significant injury to competition.”(( Tanaka v. Univ. of S. Cal., 252 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th Cir. 2001)(stating we follow the three-step framework of the Rule of Reason: “The plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the restraint produces significant anticompetitive effects within a relevant market. If the plaintiff meets this burden, the defendant must come forward with evidence of the restraint's procompetitive effects. The plaintiff must then show that any legitimate objectives can be achieved in a substantially less restrictive manner.”; See, O’Bannon, 2015 WL 5712106 at 18 Stating takes of this decision. ust Actions Relating to College or Professional Sportsven the enormous stakes of this decision. (“Instead, the NCAA makes three modest arguments about why the compensation rules do not have a significant anticompetitive effect. First, it argues that because the plaintiffs never showed that the rules reduce output in the college education market, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing a significant anticompetitive effect. Second, it argues that the rules have no anticompetitive effect because schools would not pay student-athletes anything for their NIL rights in any event, given that those rights are worth nothing. And finally, the NCAA argues that even if the district court was right