Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

29 

Opinion of the Court 

Simply put, the district court nowhere—expressly or ef-
fectively—required the NCAA to show that its rules consti-
tuted the least restrictive means of preserving consumer de-
mand.  Rather,  it  was  only  after  finding  the  NCAA’s
restraints “ ‘patently and inexplicably stricter than is nec-
essary’ ” to  achieve the procompetitive benefits the league 
had demonstrated that the district court proceeded to de-
clare a violation of the Sherman Act.  D. Ct. Op., at 1104. 
That  demanding  standard  hardly  presages  a  future  filled 
with judicial micromanagement of legitimate business de-
cisions. 

B 
In  a  related  critique,  the  NCAA  contends  the  district 
court  “impermissibly  redefined”  its  “product”  by  rejecting
its  views  about  what  amateurism  requires  and  replacing 
them with its preferred conception.  Brief for Petitioner in 
No. 20–512, at 35–36. 

This  argument,  however,  misapprehends  the  way  a  de-
fendant’s  procompetitive  business  justification  relates  to
the  antitrust  laws.    Firms  deserve  substantial  latitude  to 
fashion  agreements  that  serve  legitimate  business  inter-
ests—agreements that may include efforts aimed at intro-
ducing a new product into the marketplace.  Supra, at 15– 
19.  But none of that means a party can relabel a restraint 
as a product feature and declare it “immune from §1 scru-
tiny.”  American Needle, 560 U. S., at 199, n. 7.  In this suit, 
as in any, the district court had to determine whether the 
defendants’  agreements  harmed  competition  and  whether 
any procompetitive benefits associated with their restraints
could be achieved by “substantially less restrictive alterna-
tive” means.  D. Ct. Op., at 1104. 

The  NCAA’s  argument  not  only  misapprehends  the  in-
quiry,  it  would  require  us  to  overturn  the  district  court’s 
factual  findings.  While  the  NCAA  asks  us  to  defer  to  its 
conception of amateurism, the district court found that the