1 / 19

FRANCHISE LOCATION & ENTRY

FRANCHISE LOCATION & ENTRY. “Horizontal” and “Vertical” Restraints in Antitrust Law. Addyston Pipe : bid-rigging agreement among competitors is a “naked cartel” and is per se illegal

stephen-hester
Download Presentation

FRANCHISE LOCATION & ENTRY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FRANCHISE LOCATION & ENTRY

  2. “Horizontal” and “Vertical” Restraints in Antitrust Law • Addyston Pipe: bid-rigging agreement among competitors is a “naked cartel” and is per se illegal • Sylvania: TV manufacturer limit on where its brand can be resold by dealers is “vertical” restraint and subject to Rule of Reason • US v General Motors: Car manufacturer limit is per se illegal when acted under concerted pressure from rival car dealers seeking to rid selves of rival • Sealy: Mattress manufacturer limit on where its brand can be resold is “horizontal” because defendant company was a joint venture of all the rival sellers

  3. Are Sports League Agreements Horizontal or Vertical? • Raiders finds NFL’s structure “has both horizontal and vertical attributes” • vertical: impose best interests of whole league on individual clubs • horizontal: owners collude in own clubs’ selfish interests • Current issue in Europe, with restraints imposed by governing boards, not clubs

  4. Raiders I rule of reason • First look to see if NFL significantly restrained trade • Imagine if there were 4 rival leagues • Any concern if AFL decides not to let Raiders relocate to LA? • In real life, who competes with NFL?

  5. Raiders I justifications • Promote investment and inhibit free riding • Loss of TV Revenue or other harm to geographic scope • Would geographic concerns balance concerns justify blocking these relocations? • Canucks, Flames and Oilers all move to US • Pirates, Twins, Royals, and Brewers move to NJ, Brooklyn, White Plains, and Stamford CT

  6. /2 Raiders I justifications • Maintain rivalries • Could NL block Giants move to east coast? • Operational concerns • NHL block StL move to Saskatoon? • NBA block Kings move to Tokyo?

  7. /3 Raiders I justifications • Stability, fan loyalty, and recouping local investment • Interleague competition • Does this support Rule 4.3?

  8. Is Raiders I special? • NFL made no showing that transfer would have any harmful effect on league • If so, why did owners reject move 22-0?

  9. Apply Raiders I to Seals • Would the NHL’s veto of the Seals’ relocation from be ok if purpose was... • to promote strategy to maximize TV audience in US? • to allow NHL to expand by finding a more suitable owner in Vancouver? • to protect Toronto Maple Leafs’ TV and marketing monopoly in English Canada

  10. Post-Raiders litigation • Raiders II: offset damages with gain from franchise relocation • Clippers: clarifies that Raiders I is fact-specific • Rams: can charge fees to cover league losses • What is the social problem with franchise relocation?

  11. ANTITRUST ISSUES WITH THE SELECTION OF A PARTICULAR OWNER OF AN EXISTING FRANCHISE • Levin: P wants to join Ds, not compete with them • Reason for rejection matters (although means no summary judgment)

  12. REJECTION OF CLUB SEEKING NEW ENTRY INTO THE LEAGUE • How does the NFL’s refusal to expand to Memphis affect inter-league competition (i.e. competition with another league)? • How does the refusal affect intra-brand competition (i.e. competition with other clubs within the NFL?)

  13. REFUSAL TO EXPAND • Are there any reasons to question a league’s refusal to expand? Why can’t the NFL owners always be relied upon to expand except for legitimate business reasons? • Does Art 37 of the NHL Constitution offer meaningful protection against unwarranted refusals to expand?

  14. UNLIMITED EXPANSION • Is it desirable to force a monopoly sports league to admit anyone who wants to join the league?

  15. ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO PREVENT TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES • Ban on “state aids” • subsidies distort competition to unfairly help club (e.g. US v Cdn NHL) • exploit consumers • EU bans while US Congress doesn’t • Judicial/Administrative regulation of entry (Braves)

  16. ALTERNATIVE OF PROMOTION & RELEGATION: The Concept • The “Patriot League” • NJ, Connecticut, Columbus, Las Vegas, Portland, Orlando, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Buffalo, Sacramento • Relegation playoff • NBA2

  17. P&R: Legal Arguments • Restraint of trade in market for “competition organizing services” • leagues provide these services to clubs, who provide “team services” • Where clubs control league decisions, this is a “horizontal” agreement, like Sealy • Unlike Grizzlies, clubs ARE in competition with each other: to stay in top league • Resulting scarcity allows league to increase price

  18. P&R: Policy Arguments • Entry by merit • Reduce taxpayer exploitation • Interesting relegation races • Prevent teams exploiting loyal fans (Bulls) • Induce small market investment • Better 2nd tier competition than AAA

  19. P&R Conclusions • Have I persuaded you that the FTC should bring a case and issue and order requiring P&R? Are there any better alternatives?

More Related