Hairston v. Pacific 10 Conference9th Circuit Court of Appeals

101 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1996)

Key Search Terms: Sherman Act, football, antitrust, university, NCAA

FactsA suit was brought by former and current University of Washington footballplayers against the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac 10) in reaction to sanctionslevied by the conference after a ten-month investigation revealed several NCAArules violations. These sanctions included: a two-year bowl ban, one-yeartelevision revenue ban, a limit of 15 football scholarships for two years,reduction of football recruiting visits allowed for one year, and a two yearprobationary period. The players asserted that the Pac 10’s probation of theuniversity’s football program was a violation of Section One of the Sherman Actand breach of contract and sought injunctive relief. The players appealed thedistrict court’s decision granting of summary judgment in favor of thedefendant-appellee, the Pac 10.

IssueThe issue is whether the harm of the sanctions levied against UW footballprogram outweighs the sanctions procompetitive effects.

HoldingThe players argued that the penalties were grossly disproportionate to theuniversities’ violations. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the NCAA’s product,which involves mainting the amateur status of student-athletes, is unique andcannot be preserved except through mutual agreement of member institutions.Expert testimony found that sanctions were within the range penalties atsimilar institutions. The court of appeals held that the players failed to showthat the sanctions by the Pac 10 were an unreasonable restraint on trade. Theappellants also argued that the conference and its members created a contract,and that the players were third-party beneficiaries of this contract. The NinthCircuit held that the Pac 10 did not intend to assume a direct contractualobligation to every football player on a conference member’s team.

Summarized By: Lucy Wess