- Radovich v. National Football League
Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Radovich v. National Football League
ArgueDate=January 17
ArgueYear=1957
DecideDate=February 25
DecideYear=1957
FullName=William Radovich v. National Football League et al
USVol=352
USPage=445
Citation=
Prior=Summarily dismissed, (SD CA); affirmed, [http://openjurist.org/231/f2d/620/radovich-v-national-football-league 231 F.2d 620] (CA9)
Subsequent=
Holding=Antitrust exemption for professional baseball is specific to that sport and does not apply to professional football
SCOTUS=1956-1957
Majority=Clark
Dissent=Frankfurter
Dissent2=Harlan
JoinDissent2=Brennan
LawsApplied=Sherman Antitrust Act "Radovich v.
National Football League " (NFL), (352 U.S. 445, 1957), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that professional football, unlike professionalbaseball , was subject toantitrust laws. It was the third of three such cases heard by the Court in the 1950s involving the antitrust status of professional sports.Three justices dissented, finding the majority arbitrary and inconsistent in refusing football the exemption it had upheld five years previously in "
Toolson v. New York Yankees " (ussc|346|356|1952). The majority admitted that the similarity between the two sports from a legal standpoint would probably have denied baseball the exemption as well were it sought afresh, but existingcase law had tied their hands in the absence of any congressional action.While the NFL has secured some limited antitrust exemptions since through the legislative process, the lack of a blanket exemption due to this decision has had a major impact on the subsequent history of football. Unlike
Major League Baseball , the NFL has faced several competing leagues since then (one of which merged with it) and seen five of its franchises move to new cities. Many of these actions have been accompanied by lawsuits brought against the NFL (often successfully) by competing leagues, public stadium-management authorities and its own owners.Background of the case
In 1938 undrafted
University of Southern California graduate William "Bill" Radovich began his NFL career as a guard with theDetroit Lions . He chose to sign with them because they were the only team in the league that guaranteed players an off-season job.cite news|last=Rhoden|first=William C.|authorlink=William C. Rhoden|title= Sports of The Times; N.F.L.'s Labor Pioneer Remains Unknown|url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E6D8173DF931A35753C1A962958260&scp=1&sq=William+Radovich&st=nyt|publisher="The New York Times "|date=1994-10-02|accessdate=2008-03-08|quote=Radovich was not drafted by an N.F.L. team after the 1937 season so he shopped for a team to join. He chose Detroit. 'They were the only team that guaranteed players a job during the off season' ... In 1946 Radovich told the Lions he wanted either to be traded to the West Coast, preferably to the Rams, or to be given more money so he could afford to fly back and forth between Detroit to Los Angeles. The Lions' owner, Fred Madel Jr., refused both requests. 'The little creep said I'd either play in Detroit or I wouldn't play anywhere,' Radovich recalled. 'He also told me if I tried to play in the new league, he would put me on a blacklist for five years.']After four seasons, during which he made sportswriters'
All-Pro lists, he left to serve in the Navy duringWorld War II . He returned to the Lions after the war ended, in 1945."Radovich v. National Football League", 352 U.S. 445, 448, Clark, J.]The next year he asked to be traded to the
Los Angeles Rams , or be better paid, as his father, who lived near that city, was seriously ill and he wanted to be able to spend more time with him. Lions' owner Fred Madel Jr. refused, saying (according to Radovich) "I'd either play in Detroit or I wouldn't play anywhere". Since his contract had expired, he instead signed with theLos Angeles Dons of the rivalAll-America Football Conference (AAFC) and played with them for two seasons, despite Madel's promise to put him on ablacklist for five seasons. In 1948 the San Francisco Clippers of the Pacific Coast League (PCL), a minor pro football league whose clubs had some affiliations with the NFL, offered him a position as a player and coach. After learning that the NFL had indeed blacklisted Radovich due to his play in the AAFC and would punish any club that did hire him, however, the Clippers withdrew their offer.Radovich had to take jobs outside of professional football. One was waiting tables at Los Angeles's
Brown Derby restaurant. There he metJoseph Alioto , a former antitrust litigator with the Justice Department. In conversation, he told Alioto how he had come to this, and Alioto responded by sketching out a legal brief on the back of a cocktail napkin.cite book |title=The League: The Rise and Decline of the NFL |last=Harris |first=David |authorlink=David Harris (protester) |year=1986 |publisher=Bantam Books |location=New York, NY |isbn=0553051679 |pages=333|quote=Tose's counsel in the suit would be Joseph Alioto, former mayor of San Francisco and one of the country's foremost antitrust litigators ..."Radovich" had germinated from an encounter between Alioto and Radovich when the latter was waiting tables in Los Angeles's Brown Derby restaurant. When he told Alioto his story, the attorney drafted a brief for his case on a napkin. In it, he had attacked the League's 'blackballing' of his client as 'a conspiracy to monopolize commerce in professional football' ... Alioto's defense of the NFL had come in "Kapp v. NFL", a 1974 suit by one of Billy Sullivan's players claiming that the standard NFL player contract was a violation of the Sherman Act ... The jury went with Alioto.]NFL-AAFC rivalry
The AAFC was an eight-team league that played from 1946-49. Since it emerged at a time when the NFL was just beginning to recover from the war years (when some teams temporarily merged), was national in scope and had owners wealthier than most of their NFL counterparts, it posed a serious competitive threat to the older league. The NFL took many steps to prevent the AAFC from making headway, blacklisting media who had covered the league as well as players who jumped to it.
Ultimately it collapsed due to the dominance of the
Cleveland Browns , who won all three of its championships, and financial problems and instability at some of its weaker franchises. In December 1949 the two leagues merged. The Browns,Baltimore Colts andSan Francisco 49ers joined the NFL; other teams folded or merged with an existing team.Professional sports and antitrust
In "
Federal Baseball Club v. National League " (ussc|259|200|1922),Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. had written for a unanimous court thatMajor League Baseball was not covered by theSherman Antitrust Act because it was notinterstate commerce . Travel by teams across state line was "an incident" to the business of staging baseball games, which he described as "purely state affairs"."Federal Baseball Club v. National League ", 259 U.S. 200, 208, Holmes, J.] Three decades later "Toolson v. New York Yankees " upheld thatprecedent due to congressional inaction to change it, despite changes in the business such as broadcasting deals that made the interstate aspect a much greater part of the commerce."Toolson"'s short, "
per curiam "majority opinion concluded that the antitrust exemption applied to baseball only. In "United States v. International Boxing Club of New York " (ussc|348|236|1955), the Court denied a motion by theappellee to extend it toprofessional boxing despite the commercial similarities between it and baseball.Trial and appeal
Radovich and Alioto brought suit under the
Clayton Act , which allows private parties to seek damages fromunfair business practices , against the NFL, all its member franchises, commissionerBert Bell the PCL (by then defunct) and its commissioner at the time, J. Rufus Klawans."Radovich", at 447n2.] He alleged he had been the victim of agroup boycott intended to ruin the AAFC and sought $35,000 in damages."Radovich", at 445.] The defendants, primarily the NFL, argued in a pretrial motion that the antitrust exemption for baseball should apply equally to football, barring the lawsuit, and that even if it didn't, it should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.The district court accepted those arguments, as did the Ninth Circuit. The latter distinguished football from boxing, which the Supreme Court had already denied the exemption, by noting that it and baseball were both
team sports , unlike boxing."Radovich v. National Football League", [http://openjurist.org/231/f2d/620/radovich-v-national-football-league 231 F.2d 620] (CA9, 1955)]Before the Court
Alioto continued his advocacy for Radovich all the way to
oral argument before the justices. The federal government filed an "amicus curiae " brief on their behalf, drafted by Solicitor GeneralJ. Lee Rankin . Marshall Leahy and Bernard Nordlinger argued for the NFL."Radovich", 352 U.S. 445, 446.]Decision
Justice
Tom C. Clark wrote for the majority; there were no concurring opinions by the other justices. On the other side,Felix Frankfurter wrote an opinion reiterating his dissent in "International Boxing Club", andJohn Marshall Harlan II was joined by new justiceWilliam Brennan in another.Majority
Clark reiterated that the Court's existing jurisprudence on the issue — "Federal Baseball", "Toolson" and "International Boxing" — was explicit and clear that the exemption applied to baseball only. "As long as the Congress continues to acquiesce we should adhere to - but not extend - the interpretation of the Act made in those cases", he said. But "the volume of interstate business involved in organized professional football places it within the provisions of the Act.""Id.", at 449-452.] He admitted that this was at odds with the reality, but defended the reliance on a congressional remedy as a better process than a judicial one:
He also found that Radovich had adequately stated a
cause of action , dismissing claims of frivolity and vagueness raised by the NFL. Broadcasting revenues were likely, if proven, to be enough of the defendants' business alone to come under the terms of theSherman Antitrust Act . "This Court should not add requirements to burden the private litigant beyond what is specifically set forth by Congress", he concluded. "We think that Radovich is entitled to an opportunity to prove his charges.""Id.", at 454.]Dissents
"The most conscientious probing of the text and the interstices of the Sherman Law", wrote Frankfurter, "fails to disclose that Congress, whose will we are enforcing, excluded baseball — the conditions under which that sport is carried on — from the scope of the Sherman Law but included football." He was more concerned, however, with what he felt was undue respect for the doctrine of "
stare decisis ", a concern he had voiced in "International Boxing". "Full respect for "stare decisis" does not require a judge to forego his own convictions promptly after his brethren have rejected them", he concluded."Id.", at 455-456, Frankfurter, J., dissenting.]Harlan, who had been part of the majority in "Toolson" and "International Boxing", also saw the majority as purely arbitrary in his short dissent. "I am unable to distinguish football from baseball under the rationale of "Federal Baseball" and "Toolson"," he wrote, "and can find no basis for attributing to Congress a purpose to put baseball in a class by itself". He accused the majority of using "discriminatory fiat" to make "untenable distinctions" between the two sports."Id." at 456, Harlan, J., dissenting.]
Aftermath
With the case
remand ed for trial in the District Court, Radovich turned to a new attorney, Maxwell Keith, who settled with the league for $42,500. Radovich said years later he believed Keith, who wanted him to drop the suit, "double-crossed" him. The settlement came after lengthy arguments between the two men over whether to proceed with the trial. Afterwards he says he learned Keith had been pressured to settle by the league."What I did opened doors", he said. "It's the first time that any professional sport was ever taken to court and beaten." He never worked in football again and died in 2002.
Alioto was later elected mayor of San Francisco for two terms. He and the NFL would meet again in antitrust court, most notably as adversaries when he successfully represented
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission in its suit that cleared the way for theOakland Raiders ' move to that city. But he also successfully defended it against a suit brought by disgruntledBoston Patriots 'quarterback Joe Kapp , and representedPhiladelphia Eagles ' ownerLeonard Tose in an unsuccessful action against the bankers he alleged had conspired to try to force him to sell the team in the late 1970s.Legacy
Bell lobbied Congress to pass an antitrust exemption after the decision, and had almost succeeded before he died. His successor,
Pete Rozelle , continued the effort, but was only able to get limited exemptions to allow sharing of television revenues and, later, the merger with theAmerican Football League (AFL). Since the Court's ruling means professional football is covered under antitrust law, the NFL has faced a number of competing leagues and lawsuits it would not otherwise be subject to.Competing leagues
The AFL had been formed by
Lamar Hunt two years after "Radovich" was decided, and played for six seasons. The NFL could not use the same tactics it had against the AAFC, and the two leagues merged in 1966 to become the modern NFL. When theDallas Cowboys were created to compete for the same market as Hunt's Dallas Texans, the AFL brought a suit that eventually led to the merger.Today the AFL is considered the NFL's most successful competitor. To secure the antitrust exemption that made the merger possible, Rozelle promised
Louisiana congressmanHale Boggs the NFL would expand into New Orleans, and the Saints andCincinnati Bengals were added to the league shortly thereafter.In the 1970s the
World Football League (WFL) took on the NFL. An apparently auspicious start, during a short players' strike, turned sour when it was discovered teams gave away many tickets, and soon the teams and their league were experiencing serious financial problems. After a season and a half it folded. The only two teams to have remained solvent applied to join the NFL asexpansion team s but were rejected.The next decade brought the
United States Football League (USFL), which played its season in the spring instead of fall. After three seasons of play during which it never had the same amount of teams and many franchises moved, it won an antitrust suit it had brought against the NFL, but the jury awarded it only the token amount of one dollar in damages. The owners then decided to fold the league as they could not afford to continue.Since then only one other league has attempted to compete with the NFL. In 2001,
NBC , shut out of its TV contract with pro football for the first time since the 1960s, formed theXFL as ajoint venture with the World Wrestling Federation. The league played one short season, during the months after the NFL season ended, and then folded.Labor issues
The owners recognized the
National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) because some congressmen and senators pointed to the nonunion status of the league to deny support for exemptions. The NFLPA and the league clashed in court over labor issues and antitrust law. First there was Kapp's lawsuit, which the league eventually won when it was reheard by a jury."Kapp v. NFL", 390 F.Supp. 73 (N.D.Cal.1974), appeal vacated, [http://openjurist.org/586/f2d/644/kapp-v-national-football-league-r-kapp 586 F.2d 644] (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1996.] ThenBaltimore Colts tight end John Mackey sued to block enforcement of the "Rozelle Rule", by which teams that signed another team's free agents were compensated with players or draft picks determined by the commissioner."Mackey v. NFL", [http://openjurist.org/543/f2d/606/mackey-v-national-football-league 543 F.2d 606] (8th Cir. 1976).] His legal victory gave the players free agency, which their baseball counterparts had been denied by the Supreme Court, but the NFLPA bargained it away in return for compensation to current and former players affected by the Rozelle Rule.Harris, "op. cit.", 257. " [T] he NFL would pay $13.65 million over ten years to settle the damages arising from "Mackey v. NFL". This money would be distributed among some 3,200 active and former players ... In return, the National Football League Players Association accepted the Rozelle Rule, completely abandoning the free agency it won more than a year earlier, and making the NFL's system once again legal."]After the 1987 strike, the players won it back, but only after
New York Jets running back Freeman McNeil filed a successful lawsuit that challenged the free agency provisions under the Sherman Act.cite news|last=Freeman|first=Mike|title=NFL Is in Violation of Antitrust Laws, Jury Decides|url=http://www-tech.mit.edu/V112/N39/nfl.39w.html|publisher="Washington Post "|date=1992-09-11|accessdate=2008-03-11|quote=A federal court jury Thursday unanimously decided that the National Football League's Plan B free agency system is illegal, that it substantially harms the effect on competition for players' services and thus violates antitrust laws.] Eventually the players got the current free agency system in return for asalary cap .The 1987 strike led to another antitrust action before the Supreme Court, "
Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. " (ussc|518|231|1996). Anthony Brown, a practice squad player for theWashington Redskins during the strike, challenged the teams' decision to unilaterally impose a $1,000 weekly maximum for practice players. This time, the NFL won, as the justices ruled 8-1 that groups of employers, as well as single employers, could implement a contract provision they had offered in good faith during animpasse .Third parties
Two other significant actions have been brought against the NFL on antitrust grounds. The first was from the
North American Soccer League (NASL), which challenged an NFL policy, never formally adopted, barring owners from having interests in other professional team sports. Rozelle had pushed for its inclusion as an amendment to the league constitution, believing that owners must be focused on football and could be in aconflict of interest with the NFL if they owned franchises in other sports, since the other sports competed for disposable income with the NFL.Harris, "op. cit.", 91-96.] Opposing them were Hunt,Miami Dolphins ' ownerJoe Robbie andEdward Bennett Williams , who at the time owned theBaltimore Orioles as well as the Redskins. Hunt had founded theDallas Tornado , and owned part of the NBAChicago Bulls for a while. Robbie's wife owned theFort Lauderdale Strikers , and Robbie himself warned that the policy was "an open invitation for a lawsuit under the Sherman Act"."Ibid.", 138.]The NASL brought suit against the NFL, arguing that its restrictions on cross-ownership were an unfair trade practice to deny other sports and leagues full access to the pool of experienced franchise owners. After losing in district court, it won on appeal"NASL v. NFL", [http://openjurist.org/670/f2d/1249/north-american-soccer-league-v-national-football-league-h 670 F.2d 1249] (1982).] but by then was in desperate straits, and folded two years later. The NFL's ownership policies were slightly modified; Rozelle never got the full limitations he wanted.
During that time, the most significant suit in modern NFL history was brought. The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission (LAMCC) sued the league over its provision requiring unanimous approval from other owners for franchise moves, which had otherwise hindered its efforts to conclude a lease with the Raiders, then playing in Oakland, where owner
Al Davis was unhappy with the condition ofOakland-Alameda County Coliseum . Davis had also been incensed that the league had allowed the LA Coliseum's previous NFL team, theLos Angeles Rams , to move toAnaheim Stadium despite his abstention from the vote. His team began play in the LA Coliseum in 1981.The LAMCC's suit was the NFL's most notable use of the "single entity" defense: that despite being composed of more than two dozen separate member teams it was one business for purposes of the Sherman Act. It failed both at trial and then in appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court denied "
certiorari " in 1984."Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. NFL", [http://openjurist.org/726/f2d/1381/los-v-national 726 F.2d 1381] (9th Cir.).] Shortly afterwards the Colts moved toIndianapolis , the first of several franchise moves made possible by the invalidation of the NFL's ability to prevent them.Criticism
The NFL's antitrust-related legal entanglements as a result of "Radovich" have led to suggestions that antitrust law cannot be applied to professional sports leagues in the same way they are applied to other businesses. In 1981, while testifying before the House Judiciary Committees in support of another exemption bill, Rozelle complained that " [L] eagues are regularly damned in antitrust if they do and damned in antitrust if they don't." He noted that at the time, the city of Oakland was planning to sue the NFL if it allowed the Raiders to move to Los Angeles, and the LAMCC was suing it for "not" allowing the move.Harris, "op. cit.", 518, as quoted.]
Rozelle's complaint received some support in the 1990s when sports-law expert Gary Roberts testified to Congress that sports-related antitrust decisions, including many of those above, had been "inconsistent, often unjustifiable, and generally counterproductive".Roberts, Gary; H.R. Rep. No. 871, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994), 80, cited at cited at Stephen F. Ross, PDFlink| [http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/ross/Flood.pdf Reconsidering "Flood v. Kuhn"] , 12 U. Miami Ent. & Sports L. Rev. 169, 196n120, retrieved
March 13 ,2008 .] . In "Brown", JusticeStephen Breyer 'smajority opinion acknowledged that "clubs that make up a professional sports league are not completely independent economic competitors, as they depend upon a degree of cooperation for economic survival.""Brown v. Pro Football, Inc." 518 U.S. 231, 248, Breyer, J.]ee also
*
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 352 References
External links
*ussc|352|445|1957
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.