Opinion ID: 2583
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Revenue Sharing

Text: The only aspect of the Supreme Court's criticisms of the NCAA plan that is even superficially similar to the present case is the Court's observation that the NCAA plan was a price restraint that tends to provide the same economic rewards to all practitioners regardless of their skill, their experience, their training, or their willingness to employ innovative and difficult procedures. NCAA, 468 U.S. at 107 n. 33, 104 S.Ct. 2948 (quoting Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. at 348, 102 S.Ct. 2466). However, the circumstances of both NCAA and Maricopa County Medical Society differ significantly from those here. In Maricopa County Medical Society, the Court was concerned with a plan that involved the fixing of maximum prices that physicians could charge for health services to policyholders under specified insurance plans. The physicians were independent competing entrepreneurs. 457 U.S. at 357, 102 S.Ct. 2466. In the present case, in contrast, the Clubs are professional baseball teams that are interdependent members of the Major Leagues. Further, as discussed in Part II.C.5. below, the need for competitive balance among the Clubs is essential to the well-being of the Leagues. NCAA, which, like the present case, involved sports teams, is significantly different from the present case because it involved a sport at the college level. Colleges exist primarily to provide an education for their students; indeed, some colleges have no football program at all. In contrast, the present case involves a sport at the professional level. Providing baseball entertainment in their respective Leagues is the Clubs' raison d'être; if a Club cannot compete sufficiently to attract fans, it ceases to exist ( i.e., moves to another geographic location and becomes a different Club). The professional baseball entertainment product is enhanced and protected by fostering competitive balance among the Clubs. Colleges with sports teams that are competitively weak nonetheless continue to exist and pursue their primary goal, education. In sum, unlike Maricopa County Medical Society and NCAA, this case involves an integrated professional sports league in which the competitors are not independent but interdependent, competitive balance among the teams is essential to both the viability of the Clubs and public interest in the sport, and profit sharing is a legitimate means  approved by both of the economists in this case, see Part II.C.5. below  of maintaining some measure of competitive balance.