RADOVICH v. NFL

RADOVICH v. NFL

Opinion

 [*446]  [***458]  [**391]    MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action for treble damages and injunctive relief, brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, ¹ [****6]  tests the application of the antitrust laws to the business of professional football. Petitioner Radovich, an all-pro guard formerly with the Detroit Lions, contends that the respondents ²  [*447]  entered into a conspiracy to monopolize and control organized professional football in the United States, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of  [***459]  the Sherman Act; ³ that part of the conspiracy [****4]  was to destroy the All-America Conference, a competitive professional football league in which Radovich once played; and that pursuant to agreement, respondents boycotted Radovich and prevented him from becoming a player-coach in the Pacific Coast League. Petitioner alleges that respondents' illegal conduct damaged him in the sum of $ 35,000, to be trebled as provided by the Act. The trial court, on respondents' motion, dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 231 F.2d 620, on the basis of Federal Baseball  [**392]   Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), and Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953), applying the baseball rule to all "team sports." It further found that even if such application was erroneous and that United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U.S. 236 (1955), applied, Radovich had not grounded his claim on conduct of respondents which was "calculated to prejudice the public or unreasonably restrain interstate commerce." 231 F.2d, at 623. We granted [****5]  certiorari, 352 U.S. 818, in order to clarify the application of the Toolson doctrine and determine whether the business of football comes within the scope of the Sherman Act. For the reasons hereafter stated we conclude that Toolson and Federal Baseball do not control;  [*448]  that the respondents' activities as alleged are within the coverage of the antitrust laws; and that the complaint states a cause of action thereunder.

 [****7]  I.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.