Lexplug logoLexplug

Clarett v. National Football League

District Court, S.D. New York
174 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2239, 306 F.Supp.2d 379, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1396 (2004)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Eligibility rules in professional sports leagues that categorically exclude players based on time removed from high school constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade under the Sherman Act and are not protected by the nonstatutory labor exemption if they affect non-employees and are not the product of arm's-length bargaining over mandatory subjects.


Facts:

  • The National Football League (NFL) maintains a rule requiring that a player must be at least three full college seasons removed from high school graduation to be eligible for the draft.
  • Maurice Clarett, a highly talented running back, led Ohio State University to a national championship during his freshman year in the 2002-2003 season.
  • Following his successful freshman season, Clarett was suspended by the NCAA and Ohio State University for the entire 2003-2004 season, preventing him from playing collegiate football.
  • Clarett desired to enter the 2004 NFL draft to pursue a professional career, despite being only two years removed from his high school graduation.
  • Physically, Clarett is taller and heavier than several NFL Hall of Fame running backs, and experts considered him an NFL-caliber player likely to be drafted early.
  • The NFL excluded Clarett from the draft process solely based on the eligibility rule, barring him from the market for player services.
  • Clarett had no other comparable professional league options, as the NFL holds a dominant position in the professional football market.

Procedural Posture:

  • Clarett filed suit against the NFL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging the eligibility rule violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
  • The NFL moved for summary judgment, arguing the rule was protected by the nonstatutory labor exemption and that Clarett lacked antitrust standing.
  • Clarett cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing the rule was a per se illegal group boycott or an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is the NFL's eligibility rule, which bars players less than three seasons removed from high school from the draft, immune from antitrust scrutiny under the nonstatutory labor exemption, and if not, does it constitute an illegal group boycott under the Sherman Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Scheindlin

Yes, the NFL's eligibility rule violates the Sherman Act because it is a naked restraint on trade that is not immune from antitrust scrutiny. The court reasoned that the nonstatutory labor exemption does not apply because the rule does not concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining (wages, hours, conditions of employment) but rather eligibility for employment. Furthermore, the exemption cannot shield agreements that affect only strangers to the bargaining unit—prospective employees like Clarett who had no voice in the negotiations. On the merits of the antitrust claim, the court found the rule to be a 'group boycott' and a naked restraint on trade. Under a 'quick look' rule of reason analysis, the NFL failed to offer legitimate procompetitive justifications; arguments regarding player safety or protecting the 'entertainment product' do not enhance economic competition. Consequently, the rule is illegal.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant, though controversial, application of antitrust law to professional sports eligibility rules. It sharply limits the scope of the nonstatutory labor exemption, establishing that unions and leagues cannot immunize exclusionary conduct against future employees who are not part of the bargaining unit. The ruling underscores that 'player safety' or 'product quality' are not automatically valid procompetitive justifications for excluding competitors from a labor market. While this specific decision was later overturned by the Second Circuit, this district court opinion remains a key text for understanding the tension between labor law and antitrust law regarding market entry restrictions.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Clarett v. National Football League (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"