Fraser v. Major League Soccer, L.L.C.
284 F. 3d 47 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court may deem a district court's potentially erroneous grant of summary judgment on a Sherman Act §1 claim to be harmless error if the plaintiffs' case would have ultimately failed at trial due to a jury's binding finding on another claim that the plaintiffs failed to prove the alleged relevant market.
Facts:
- After the previous top-tier U.S. soccer league, the North American Soccer League (NASL), folded in 1985, the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) promised to establish a new, viable Division I league.
- The USSF decided to sanction only one Division I league, fearing that rival leagues would dilute revenues and drive up costs.
- In 1995, Major League Soccer (MLS) was formed as a Delaware limited liability company (LLC) and was sanctioned as the exclusive Division I league.
- MLS was structured as a single entity, where the league itself owned all teams, player contracts, intellectual property, and broadcast rights.
- MLS recruited, negotiated with, and paid all players from a central league fund, and determined where many key players would play.
- MLS contracted with independent 'operator/investors' to manage the day-to-day operations of the individual teams.
- These operator/investors had some autonomy in local marketing and staffing but were prohibited from independently bidding for players and were required to adhere to a league-set player salary budget.
- The operator/investors collectively held a majority of the votes on the MLS board of governors, which controlled the league's operations.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of professional soccer players sued Major League Soccer (MLS), its operator/investors, and the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The complaint alleged violations of Sherman Act §1 (conspiracy), Sherman Act §2 (monopolization), and Clayton Act §7 (unlawful acquisition).
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Sherman Act §1 and Clayton Act §7 claims, holding that MLS was a 'single entity' incapable of conspiring with itself.
- The Sherman Act §2 claim proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a special verdict for the defendants, finding that the players had failed to prove the relevant market they alleged.
- The district court entered a final judgment in favor of all defendants on all counts.
- The players (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a professional sports league, organized as a single company that owns all teams and centrally contracts with players, constitute a 'single entity' under the Sherman Act, § 1, thereby making it legally incapable of conspiring with its separately-owned team operators to restrain competition in the player services market?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Chief Judge
No, it is not established that such a league structure automatically qualifies as a single entity. The court found MLS to be a 'hybrid arrangement' between a single firm and a joint venture, but declined to definitively resolve the single entity question. The court held that even if the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the single entity defense, the error was harmless. The court reasoned that the players' Section 1 claim would have failed at trial anyway because, under the required rule of reason analysis, the players had to prove market power in a relevant market. The jury, in deciding the Section 2 claim, found that the players failed to prove their alleged relevant market (Division I professional soccer players in the U.S.). This binding factual finding would have been fatal to the Section 1 claim as well, rendering any error on the single entity issue inconsequential to the case's ultimate outcome.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the judicial difficulty in applying traditional antitrust doctrines to the unique economic structures of modern professional sports leagues. By sidestepping a definitive ruling on the 'single entity' defense for a league with MLS's hybrid structure, the court left a significant question in sports antitrust law unresolved, suggesting a case-by-case, functional analysis for such entities. The opinion emphasizes the critical, and often dispositive, role of market definition in any antitrust case judged under the rule of reason. The harmless error holding serves as a powerful reminder that a plaintiff's failure on a core factual element like market definition can doom multiple legal theories simultaneously.
Unlock the full brief for Fraser v. Major League Soccer, L.L.C.