Yes, the Rozelle Rule is an illegal business practice. First, the NFL argued that because the rule was in a union contract, it should be exempt from these laws. The court said no, because the rule was forced on the players and wasn't the result of real, good-faith negotiations. Second, the court looked at whether the rule was 'reasonable.' The NFL claimed it needed the rule to keep wealthy teams from buying all the star players. The court decided the rule was way too extreme. It applied to every player, not just stars, lasted a player's entire career, and was completely one-sided. Therefore, it was an unreasonable and illegal restriction on players' freedom to work where they want.

Yes, the rule is unfair and breaks trade laws. It stops teams from freely hiring players and keeps players from negotiating better deals for themselves. The rule applies to all players, no matter how good they are, and lasts their whole career. Players don't get a say in how compensation is decided when they want to switch teams. While we understand that the NFL wants to keep teams balanced and competitive, this rule goes too far. It's more restrictive than it needs to be. We don't think this rule is automatically illegal, but when we look at how it works and its effects, we see that it's not reasonable. The players' union didn't really agree to this rule in their negotiations with the team owners, so the rule can't be protected from trade laws. Therefore, we agree with the lower court that the Rozelle Rule breaks trade laws, but for slightly different reasons.

Yes, the Rozelle Rule constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The rule is not shielded by the nonstatutory labor exemption because it was not the product of bona fide arm's-length bargaining. While the unique business nature of the NFL makes a 'per se' violation inappropriate, the rule fails under the 'Rule of Reason' analysis. The court found that the rule's restraints on the market for player services were significant, depressing salaries and deterring player movement. The NFL's justifications, such as maintaining competitive balance and recouping player development costs, were not sufficient to justify the rule's highly restrictive nature. The rule is overly broad, applying to all players regardless of skill, is unlimited in duration, and lacks procedural safeguards for the players, making it far more restrictive than necessary to achieve any legitimate league objectives.

Yes. The Rozelle Rule, as enforced, unreasonably restrains trade in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act because it significantly deters clubs from negotiating with and signing free agents, decreases players' bargaining power, and depresses player salaries. The rule's enforcement lacks procedural safeguards and is more restrictive than necessary to serve any legitimate purposes it might have in maintaining competitive balance in the NFL. While we disagree with the district court's determination that the Rozelle Rule is a per se violation of the antitrust laws, we find that under the Rule of Reason, it constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Rozelle Rule applies to every NFL player regardless of status or ability, is unlimited in duration, and operates as a perpetual restriction on a player's ability to sell his services in an open market throughout his career. Furthermore, the enforcement of the rule is unaccompanied by procedural safeguards, with players having no input into the process of determining fair compensation. We recognize the NFL's interest in maintaining competitive balance, but find that the Rozelle Rule is significantly more restrictive than necessary to serve this purpose. The labor exemption to antitrust laws does not apply in this case because, although the Rozelle Rule concerns a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, the agreements embodying the Rule were not the product of bona fide arm's-length negotiations. Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment that the Rozelle Rule violates §1 of the Sherman Act, but on the grounds that it fails the Rule of Reason analysis rather than as a per se violation.

John MacKey v. National Football League

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot