Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

27 

Opinion of the Court 

of such imaginings would risk interfering “with the legiti-
mate objectives at issue” without “adding that much to com-
petition.”  7 id., ¶1505b, at 435–436.

Even worse, “[r]ules that seek to embody every economic 
complexity and qualification may well, through the vagar-
ies of administration, prove counter-productive, undercut-
ting  the  very  economic  ends  they  seek  to  serve.”    Barry 
Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F. 2d 227, 234 (CA1 
1983) (BREYER, J.).  After all, even “[u]nder the best of cir-
cumstances,”  applying  the  antitrust  laws  “ ‘can  be  diffi-
cult’ ”—and mistaken condemnations of legitimate business 
arrangements “ ‘are especially costly, because they chill the
very’ ” procompetitive conduct “ ‘the antitrust  laws are de-
signed  to  protect.’ ”    Verizon  Communications  Inc.  v.  Law 
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U. S. 398, 414 (2004). 
Indeed, static judicial decrees in ever-evolving markets may 
themselves facilitate collusion or frustrate entry and com-
petition.  Ibid.    To  know  that  the  Sherman  Act  prohibits 
only unreasonable restraints of trade is thus to know that 
attempts to “ ‘[m]ete[r]’ small deviations is not an appropri-
ate antitrust function.”  Hovenkamp, Antitrust Balancing,
12 N. Y. U. J. L. & Bus. 369, 377 (2016). 

While we agree with the NCAA’s legal premise, we can-
not say the same for its factual one.  Yes, at the first step of 
its inquiry, the district court held that the student-athletes 
had met their burden of showing the NCAA’s restraints col-
lectively  bear  an  anticompetitive  effect.    And,  given  that,
yes, at step two the NCAA had to show only that those same 
rules collectively yield a procompetitive benefit.  The trou-
ble for the NCAA, though, is not the level of generality.  It 
is the fact that the district court found unpersuasive much
of  its  proffered  evidence.    See  D.  Ct.  Op.,  at  1070–1076,
1080–1083.  Recall that the court found the NCAA failed “to 
establish that the challenged compensation rules . . . have 
any direct connection to consumer demand.”  Id., at 1070. 

To  be  sure,  there  is  a  wrinkle  here.    While  finding  the