Exhibit 10.14



                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             DISTRICT OF NEW JIERSEY




JAMES GUIDRY, CALVIN SCHEXNAYDER,             )
MIKE PAWLAWSKI, GARY COMPTON,                 )
CLINT DOLEZEL, GREG HOPKINS,                  )       Civil Action No.
JAMAL ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and      )
all others similarly situated,                )
                                              )
                 Plaintiffs,                  )
                                              )
                 V.                           )
                                              )
                                              )
ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE, L.L.C.,                )
DIVERSIFIED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, INC.,       )
PHOENIX ARENA SPORTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,     )
BUFFALO SPORTS, ENTERPRISES, INC.,            )      COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
FLORIDA BOBCATS, INC., DP FOX FOOTBALL        )
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., IOWA PRO FOOTBALL, L.P.,    )         FOR JURY TRIAL
FOSTERING SPORTS IN IOWA, INC.,               )
ROCKET BALL, LTD., LLA SPORTS, INC.,          )
MILWAUKEE MUSTANGS ARENA FOOTBALL, INC.,      )
NASHVILLE KATS, L.L.C., NEW ENGLAND SEA       )
WOLVES, L.L.C., NEW JERSEY ARENA FOOTBALL,     )
INC., ORLANDO PREDATORS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,  )
PORTLAND FOREST DRAGONS, L.L.C.,               )
SAN JOSE SABERCATS, L.P., SAN JOSE ARENA      )
FOOTBALL CO., L.L.C., and PIGSKIN, INC.,      )
                                              )
                 Defendants.                  )


                CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

     Plaintiffs, by their undersigned counsel, for their Complaint against the

above-named Defendants allege as follows:

<PAGE>


                                  INTRODUCTION
                                  ------------

     1. This antitrust class action is brought by plaintiffs on behalf of
current and former Arena Football League ("AFL") players against the Arena
Football League, L.L.C. and the owners and operators of each AFL member team to
redress defendants' unlawful practices that have stifled and suppressed
competition for the services of plaintiffs and similarly situated first-tier
minor league professional football players in the United States. By combining
and conspiring to contract with plaintiffs and the class they represent only on
certain terms, refusing to contract with players who are reserved to other
teams, entering into price fixing agreements to depress, fix, and stabilize the
amounts the teams pay to employ players, and agreeing in many respects not to
compete for such players' services, defendants have violated the antitrust laws
of the United States and have harmed competition in numerous ways, including
reducing players' salaries, leaving players no reasonable alternative but to
agree to extremely disadvantageous contract terms, and otherwise denying players
the benefits they would have received in a competitive market.

     2. Plaintiffs bring this action (1) to enjoin defendants' unlawful
agreements that have limited and continue to limit competition for player
services, and (2) to recover treble damages for injuries suffered as a result of
defendants' unlawful conduct, on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of
all other similarly situated former and current Arena Football League players
who have entered into and/or will enter into player contracts with AFL teams,
for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1 and 2.


                                       -2-

<PAGE>



                                     PARTIES
                                     -------

     3. Plaintiff James Guidry is an AFL player who last played for the Portland
Forest Dragons (a team that is now called the Oklahoma Wranglers). Mr. Guidry
is currently a resident of the state of Texas.

     4. Plaintiff Calvin Schexnayder is an AFL player who currently plays for
the Arizona Rattlers and is a resident of the state of Arizona.

     5. Plaintiff Mike Pawlawski is an AFL player who currently plays for the
Albany Firebirds and is a resident of the state of California.

     6. Plaintiff Gary Compton is an AFL player who currently plays for the
Milwaukee Mustangs and is a resident of the state of Wisconsin.

     7. Plaintiff Clint Dolezel is an AFL player who currently plays for the
Houston Thunderbears and is a resident of the state of Texas.

     8. Plaintiff Greg Hopkins is an AFL player who currently plays for the
Albany Firebirds and is a resident of the state of Pennsylvania.

     9. Plaintiff Jamal Ellis is an AFL player who currently plays for the Grand
Rapids Rampage and is a resident of the state of North Carolina.

     10. Defendant Arena Football League, L.L.C. is a limited liability
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal
place of business located at 75 East Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Defendant
Arena Football League, L.L.C. operates the Arena Football League, the only
first-tier minor league professional football league in the United States. The
Arena Football League, L.L.C. constitutes a combination of separate member
companies, including the individual defendant team entities who compete against
one another. One of the anticompetitive purposes of the Arena Football League is
the elimination of


                                       -3-

<PAGE>



competition between and among the defendant team entities for the services of
first-tier minor league professional football players. AFL Commissioner C. David
Baker and other employees of Arena Football League, L.L.C. act as agents and
representatives of all of the individual businesses that own and/or operate
teams in the Arena Football League and they have joined, participated in, and
furthered the unlawful conspiracy.

     11. Defendant Diversified Business Enterprises of America, Inc. is a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York with its principal
place of business located at 14 Computer Drive East, Albany, NY 12205. Defendant
Diversified Business Enterprises of America, Inc. owns and operates the Albany
Firebirds AFL team.

     12. Defendant Phoenix Arena Sports Corporation is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Arizona with its principal place of business
located at 201 East Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Defendant Phoenix Arena
Sports Corporation owns and operates the Arizona Rattlers AFL team.

     13. Defendant Buffalo Sports Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business
located at 661 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York. Defendant Buffalo Sports
Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates the Buffalo Destroyers AFL team.

     14. Defendant Florida Bobcats, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Florida with its principal place of business located at
1858 Nobb Hill Road, Plantation, Florida. Defendant Florida Bobcats, Inc. owns
and operates the Florida Bobcats AFL team.

     15. Defendant DP Fox Football Holdings, L.L.C. is a limited liability
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Michigan with its principal
place of business located at


                                       -4-

<PAGE>



130 West Fulton, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Defendant DP Fox Football Holdings,
L.L.C. owns and operates the Grand Rapids Rampage AFL team.

     16. Defendant Iowa Pro Football, L.P. is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of the state of Iowa with its principal place of business located
at 319 7th Street, Suite 222, Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Iowa Pro Football,
L.P. owns and operates the Iowa Barnstormers AFL team.

     17. Defendant Fostering Sports in Iowa, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of Iowa with its principal place of business located
at 319 7th Street, Suite 222, Des Moines, Iowa. Defendant Fostering Sports in
Iowa, Inc., is the general partner in Iowa Pro Football, L.P., and in that
capacity owns and operates the Iowa Bamstormers AFL team.

     18. Defendant Rocket Ball, Ltd. is a limited partnership organized under
the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business located at 2
Greenway Plaza, Suite 400, Houston, Texas. Defendant Rocket Ball, Ltd. owns and
operates the Houston Thunderbears AFL team.

     19. Defendant LLA Sports, Inc. is a corporation original under the laws of
the State of Texas with its principal place of business located at 2 Greenway
Plaza, Suite 400, Houston Texas. Defendant LLA Sports, Inc. is the general
partner in Rocket Ball, Ltd., and in that capacity owns and operates the Houston
Thunderbears AFL team.

     20. Defendant Milwaukee Mustangs Arena Football, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Wisconsin with its principal place of
business located at 740 North Plankton Avenue, Suite 310, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Defendant Milwaukee Mustangs Arena Football, Inc. owns and operates the
Milwaukee Mustangs AFL team.


                                       -5-

<PAGE>



     21. Defendant Nashville Kats L.L.C. is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Tennessee with its principal place of
business located at 211 Union Street, Suite 1000, Nashville, Tennessee.
Defendant Nashville Kats L.L.C. owns and operates the Nashville Kats AFL team.

     22. Defendant New England Sea Wolves, L.L.C. is a limited liability
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut with its
principal place of business located at 196 Trumbull Street, Hartford,
Connecticut. Defendant New England Sea Wolves, L.L.C. owns and operates the New
England Sea Wolves AFL team.

     23. Defendant New Jersey Arena Football, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the state of New Jersey with its principal place of business
located at One Palmer Terrace, Carlstadt, New Jersey. Defendant New Jersey Arena
Football, Inc. owns and operates the New Jersey Red Dogs AFL team.

     24. Defendant Orlando Predators Entertainment, Inc. is a public corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Florida with its principal place of
business located at 400 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. Defendant Orlando
Predators Entertainment, Inc. owns and operates the Orlando Predators AFL team.

     25. Defendant Portland Forest Dragons, L.L.C. is a limited liability
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Oregon with its principal
place of business located at' 9400 S.W. Beaverton Hillsdale Highway, Suite 101,
Beaverton, Oregon. Defendant Portland Forest Dragons, L.L.C. owned and operated
the Portland Forest Dragons AFL team. Upon information and belief, the Portland
Forest Dragons will be moved and will operate during the 2000 season as the
Oklahoma Wranglers.


                                       -6-

<PAGE>



     26. Defendant San Jose SaberCats, L.P. is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of business
located at 600 East Brokaw Road, San Jose, California. Defendant San Jose
SaberCats, L.P. owns and operates the San Jose SaberCats AFL team.

     27. San Jose Arena Football Co., L.L.C. is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Nevada with its principal place of
business located at 600 E. Brokaw Rd., San Jose, California. Defendant San Jose
Arena Football Co., L.L.C. is the managing member of San Jose Arena Football
Co., L.L.C., and in that capacity owns and operates the San Jose SaberCats AFL
team.

     28. Defendant Pigskin, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Florida with its principal place of business located at 401
Channelside Drive, Tampa, Florida. Defendant Pigskin, Inc. owns and operates the
Tampa Bay Storm AFL team.

                             JURISDICTION AND VENUE
                             ----------------------

     29. This complaint is filed and these proceedings are instituted under
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 15, 26, to obtain
injunctive relief and to recover damages and the costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, for the injuries plaintiffs, and members of the
class they represent, have sustained by reason of violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1,2.

     30. Defendants transact business, may be found and/or have agents in the
District of New Jersey. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants by
virtue of their business activities in the District of New Jersey.

     31. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ss. 1331, 1337 and 15 U.S.C. ss. 15, 26.


                                       -7-

<PAGE>


     32.Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 15 U. S. C.
ss. 15, 22 and 28 U.S.C. 1391.

                          INTERSTATE TRADE AND COMMERCE
                          -----------------------------

     33. Defendants are primarily engaged in the business of owning and/or
operating the Arena Football League and its member teams, which are located in
numerous states throughout the country. The operation of the AFL and its member
teams involves numerous aspects of interstate trade and commerce, including the
sale of tickets throughout the country, telecasting games throughout the
country, advertising throughout the country, and licensing merchandise
throughout the country.

     34. Moreover, the business activities and unlawful agreements among
defendants to restrain and reduce competition for the services of players who
reside in nearly every state in the country, and to restrain the ability of such
players to move from one team to another team, which are the subject of this
complaint, are within the flow of and have substantially and adversely affected
interstate trade and commerce. The interstate trade and commerce described
herein has been carried out in part in this district and in other states in the
United States, and commerce between this district and other states of the United
States has been directly restrained by the anticompetitive conduct alleged
herein.

                                 CO-CONSPIRATORS
                                 ---------------

     35. Various other businesses, individuals, and entities not yet named as
defendants in this litigation, including former owners and operators of AFL
teams, individuals who are employed by Arena Football League, L.L.C., and/or
individuals who are employed by the AFL defendant teams have performed acts,
made statements, and engaged in conduct in furtherance of the illegal conspiracy
and other offenses alleged in this complaint. Plaintiffs are


                                       -8-

<PAGE>

not fully aware at this time of the identity of all co-conspirators who actively
have participated in the offenses hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will seek
leave to amend this Complaint to add additional defendants and/or allegations
as circumstances warrant.


                            CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
                            ------------------------

     36. Plaintiffs bring this class action under Rule 23(b)(l) and (b)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and a class
consisting of all players who have been, are now, or will be under contract to
play Arena Football for any AFL team during the time period February 3, 1996
through the date of final judgment in this action and the determination of any
appeal therefrom.

     37. The number of potential class members is so numerous and the class
members are so scattered geographically that joinder of all class members is
impracticable. This action presents questions of law or fact common to the
class. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class they
represent, and the plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class members they represent.

     38. In particular, each person in the class is, has been and/or will be
subject to and adversely affected by certain uniform agreements, rules and
practices among defendants to restrain competition for first-tier minor league
professional football players' services in the United States. The defendants
have all agreed to abide by the same agreements, rules, and regulations and the
purpose and effect of that conduct has been to damage plaintiffs and all members
of the class.

     39. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class
would create a risk of: (a) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect
to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards
of conduct for the defendants, or (b)


                                       -9-

<PAGE>


adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a
practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other class members not
parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to
protect their interests.

     40. By agreeing to contract with plaintiffs and the class only on certain
agreed upon terms, defendants have acted, refused to act, and/or will act, on
grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive
relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a
whole.

                          THE RELEVANT MARKET IMPACTED
                         BY DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
                         -------------------------------

     41. The relevant market restrained by defendants' unlawful conduct is the
market for first-tier minor league professional football player services in the
United States. Because defendants own and/or operate all of the first-tier minor
league professional football teams in the United States, they are the only
purchasers of first-tier minor league professional football players' services,
and thus collectively have market power and monopoly power in the market for
employing first-tier minor league professional football players.

     42. The market for first-tier minor league professional football player
services in the United States is distinct from the markets for the services of
all other professional athletes, and in particular is distinct from the market
for major league professional football player services, which is monopolized by
the National Football League and its member teams. The services of first-tier
minor league professional football players are not generally substitutable for
the services of major league professional football players because such players
are not currently perceived by the NFL teams as substitute players for NFL
teams. Similarly, the business of producing first-tier minor league professional
football games in general is different and distinct


                                      -10-

<PAGE>


from the business of producing other professional football games and in
particular is distinct from the production of professional football games by
other leagues, such as the National Football League.

     43. Evidence that Arena Football, the only first-tier minor league
professional football product in the United States, is distinguishable from
other types of football and sports entertainment includes the following: AFL
rules are dramatically different from the rules of other professional football
leagues; the AFL and its teams have expressly recognized that Arena Football is
a game that is distinct from other sports, and market the game as distinct from
other sports; the AFL claims exclusive ownership of purported intellectual
property rights in certain aspects of the Arena Football League game; the AFL
season is played during a different time of year than other professional
football leagues and is played in different sports stadia than other
professional football leagues; the levels of compensation and benefits, and the
terms of employment available to AFL players is vastly different from and is not
affected by the player compensation and benefits, and the terms of employment
for players in the National Football League; AFL players have no reasonably
substitutable alternative purchasers of their skills and talents; fans and other
consumers view Arena Football as a game that is distinct from other professional
sports; and the ticket prices to Arena Football games are not constrained or
impacted by and do not affect the ticket prices for other professional football
games.

     44. The United States market for first-tier minor league professional
football players is economically distinct and separate from other geographic
markets. Most United States first-tier minor league professional football
players do not wish to play outside the United States and will not do so, except
in the rare instance where doing so will likely improve their chances of


                                      -11-

<PAGE>


becoming major league professional football players. Accordingly, the United
States is the relevant geographic employment market impacted by defendants'
unlawful activity.

                            UNLAWFUL CONDUCT ALLEGED
                            ------------------------

     45. The AFL member teams constitute the only buyers for first-tier minor
league professional football player services in the United States. Accordingly,
competition in this market only can take place between and among the AFL member
teams. All of the AFL member teams are independently owned and operated. They do
not have common ownership and do not share their profits and losses.

     46. The AFL member teams have combined and conspired among themselves and
with others for the purpose and with the effect of depressing, fixing and
stabilizing the salaries paid and the benefits provided to first-tier minor
league professional football player services. Defendants' unlawful conduct has
restrained and limited competition for AFL players' services through, among
other things, price fixing, and engaging in group boycotts and concerted
refusals to deal. Moreover, defendants have imposed these restrictions even
though AFL players have never had a collective bargaining representative and
have never engaged in collective bargaining.

     47. The AFL member teams have agreed to use a "Standard Player Contract" as
the basis for negotiating and contracting with AFL players in order to limit
competition between and among the teams. That contract includes many terms that
benefit the defendant teams and harm the players, including but not limited to
terms that (a) limit the duration of the team's commitment to players to only
one year, (b) require players to contract only with that team even after the
contract expires, (c) give the team the unilateral right to "release" players
and terminate their contracts, (d) give the team the right to suspend players,
thereby terminating their rights to receive payment under the contract, while
still keeping players bound by the contract and


                                      -12-

<PAGE>



requiring players not to play for any other team, (e) require players to
release, on a prospective basis, certain claims against the AFL and all of its
teams, (f) require players to release claims against the AFL and its teams
relating to inadequate and unsafe working conditions for the players, (g)
require players to grant to the team and the League the right to use players'
names, signatures, likenesses, and pictures for any and all publicity and
promotional purposes, while prohibiting players from engaging in any
promotional, advertising, endorsement or sponsorship activity without prior,
written permission, (h) give the team the right to trade players to any other
team in the league without consulting the players, and only paying players for
transportation expenses (not moving expenses or any other compensation) to the
city where players are traded, and (i) give the league the right to reject
contracts if the team has provided any benefits, compensation or other
unapproved terms to players that violate the agreements among the owners in the
league.

     48. The AFL member teams have agreed to boycott every player who is
"reserved" by any other team. including players who are suspended, players who
are retired, and players who have refused to extend their contracts for an
additional year. The purpose and effect of this agreement is to eliminate any
competitive option for the player, in order that the team that has "reserved"
the player can present "take it or leave it" terms to the player and the player
will not have the benefit of free competition in order to negotiate better
contractual terms and conditions of employment in his individual player
contract.

     49. The AFL teams have agreed to impose limits on the amount that each
individual team is permitted to pay players, and to fine or otherwise punish or
take action against teams that exceed the player compensation limits.


                                      -13-

<PAGE>



     50. The AFL teams have entered into other agreements that have reduced and
eliminated competition in the market for first-tier minor league professional
football player services and have thereby damaged plaintiffs and the class.

     51. The Commissioner of the AFL and other employees of Arena Football
League, L.L.C. have played an active role in furthering and policing the
conspiracy, including taking actions against teams that attempt to compete for
player services. The Commissioner has also played an active role in ensuring
that players who are victimized by teams and team owners do not have any remedy
when they attempt to follow the arbitration and grievance procedures mandated by
the contract the players are forced to sign.

     52. When the defendants became aware that AFL players were considering
filing an antitrust case against the defendants, the defendants agreed to take
certain actions to further their unlawful conspiracy and prevent and/or impede
the players from filing suit or taking any action to challenge defendants'
unlawful conduct. These actions in furtherance of defendants' unlawful
conspiracy have included included breaching contracts with players, causing
other business entities to breach contracts with players, threatening to boycott
players, and engaging in other conduct designed to intimidate players from
filing suit. In particular, defendants have threatened to boycott players until
they agree to give up their antitrust rights and accept the imposition of
anticompetitive terms of employment.

     53. Each defendant has participated in one or more overt acts in
furtherance of the conspiracy alleged in this complaint and has participated in
conspiratorial activities in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.


                                      -14-

<PAGE>



                         THE HARM TO COMPETITION CAUSED
                         BY DEFENDANTS' UNLAWFUL CONDUCT
                         -------------------------------

     54. The combination and conspiracy described in this complaint has harmed
competition in the United States market for first-tier minor league professional
football player services in numerous ways, including but not limited to the
following:

          a. competition among AFL teams for providing salaries and bonuses has
     been restrained, resulting in player salaries and bonuses that have been
     depressed, fixed, stabilized and/or maintained at artificially low and
     noncompetitive levels;

          b. competition among AFL teams for providing non-salary contractual
     terms, such as rights of termination, guarantees and licensing rights, has
     been restrained, resulting in non-salary terms and other contractual terms
     that have been fixed and/or maintained at artificially low and
     noncompetitive levels;

          c. competition among AFL teams for providing multi-year player
     contracts has been restrained, resulting in all or nearly all AFL players
     being denied the ability to secure multi-year contracts; and

          d. competition among AFL teams for player services in general has been
     restrained.

     55. The combination and conspiracy described in this complaint has
eliminated competition to such an extent that players are left with no
reasonable option but to endure a wide variety of improper, coercive, and
unlawful conduct by Arena Football League teams, owners, and coaches. This
conduct has included teams violating federal and state tax laws, and state
workers compensation laws, in an effort to shift liability for social security
payments and other


                                      -15-

<PAGE>



payments to players and in an effort to defraud federal and state governments.
All of this improper and illegal conduct has damaged the plaintiffs and other
AFL players.

                       INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS
                       ----------------------------------

     56. By reason of the antitrust violations alleged in this complaint,
plaintiffs and each member of the class have been deprived of the benefits of
free and open competition in the market for first-tier minor league professional
football player services in the United States. In particular, plaintiffs and the
class have received lower salaries and bonuses and other compensation, have been
forced to work wherever their team trades them, have been forced to surrender
their rights of publicity to the defendants, and otherwise have received less
favorable terms of employment than they would have received in a competitive
market. As a result, plaintiffs and each member of the class have been injured
and damaged in their business and property in an amount presently undetermined.

                                    COUNT ONE
                                    ---------
              (Unreasonable Restraint of Trade, Sherman Act ss. 1)

     57. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 56 above.

     58. The defendant owners and operators of AFL teams are all separate
economic entities that do not share their profits and losses and do not share a
unity of interest. Their agreements and their concerted conduct constitute
contracts, combinations and conspiracies under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. ss. 1.

     59. The unlawful agreements entered into by defendants include per se
violations of the federal antitrust laws, including group boycotts, concerted
refusals to deal, and price fixing, and those agreements along with other
conduct by the defendants and their co


                                      -16-

<PAGE>


conspirators constitute unlawful contracts, combinations and conspiracies in
unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in the United States market for
first-tier minor league professional football player services in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1.

     60. No procompetitive purpose or effect exists to justify the unlawful
conduct engaged in by defendants. However, even if defendants' conduct had some
procompetitive effects, such procompetitive effects can be achieved through less
restrictive and less anticompetitive means.

     61. Defendants' unreasonable restraints of trade have substantially
affected interstate commerce and have substantially injured competition in the
market for first-tier minor league professional football player services.

     62. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the
class have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable loss and damage to
their business or property.

                                    COUNT TWO
                                    ---------
                       (Monopolization, Monopolization by
                         Combination, and/or Conspiracy
                        to Monopolize, Sherman Act ss. 2)

     63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
1 through 62 above.

     64. Defendants possess monopoly power in the United States market for
first-tier professional football player services.

     65. The defendant owners and operators of AFL teams are all separate
economic do not share their profits and losses and do not share a unity of
interest. Their and their concerted conduct constitute monopolization,
monopolization by and conspiracy to monopolize under Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 2.


                                      -17-

<PAGE>


     66. Defendants have entered into and have carried out their unlawful
conspiracy and combination with the specific intent of acquiring and maintaining
monopoly power in the United States market for first-tier minor league
professional football player services.

     67. Through their unlawful conspiracy and combination and other
anticompetitive actions, defendants have willfully and purposefully acquired
and/or maintained their monopoly power in the United States market for
first-tier minor league professional football player services in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 2. Defendants have not acquired
and/or maintained monopoly power in the relevant market as a result of growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic
accident.

     68. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiffs and the
class have been injured in their business and property.

                                PRAYER FOR RELIEF
                                -----------------

     WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Complaint
that decrees as follows:

          a. That defendants have unreasonably restrained trade and commerce in
     violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1;

          b. That defendants have monopolized, combined to monopolize, and/or
     conspired to monopolize the relevant market in violation of Section 2 of
     the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 2;

          c. That defendants are enjoined from implementing or enforcing the
     exclusionary and anticompetitive agreements alleged herein or any other
     agreements with the purpose or effect of restraining competition among AFL
     teams for player services, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15
     U.S.C. ss. 26;


                                      -18-

<PAGE>


          d. That plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an award of
     compensatory damages in an amount to be determined and trebled, as provided
     by Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 15;

          e. That plaintiffs and the class are entitled to an award for their
     costs of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as provided by
     Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 15;

          f. That plaintiffs and the class are entitled to such other and
     further relief as this Court deems proper and equitable.


                                      -19-

<PAGE>


                                  JURY DEMAND

          Pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P 38(b), plaintiffs hereby demand trial by
jury on all matters so triable.


Dated:  February 3, 2000

                                     Respectfully submitted,


                                     KROVATIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC

                                     By:  /s/ Gerald Krovatin
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Gerald Krovatin

                                          744 Broad Street
                                          Newark, New Jersey 07102
                                          (973) 424-9777

                                     WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES

                                          Jeffrey L. Kessler
                                          David G. Feher
                                          767 Fifth Avenue
                                          New York, New York 10153
                                          (212) 310-8000

                                     WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

                                          Mark S. Levinstein
                                          John E. Schmidtlein
                                          725 12th Street, N.W.
                                          Washington, D.c. 20005
                                          (202) 434-5012

                                     COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS


                                      -20-