Fraser v. Major League Soccer - 284 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2002)

Rule:

Conspiracy to monopolize claims are not often the subject of much attention, since almost any such claim could be proved more easily under 15 U.S.C.S. 1's ban on conspiracies in restraint of trade. However, a majority of courts that have touched the issue say, in general terms and often without analysis, that proof of a relevant market, and hence, market power, is not required in a conspiracy to monopolize claim. On the other side, there are also a number of decisions that say that a relevant market is necessary. That is also the view of the more persuasive commentary, including the most respected of the antitrust treatises. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit leans toward this view as a general matter, a black or white rule is not inevitable: there may in principle be some cases in which one could argue that a conspiracy claim should be provable without a showing that the alleged market is a real economic market.

Facts:

Professional soccer players sued Major League Soccer, LLC ("MLS"), nine independent operator/investors in MLS, and the United States Soccer Federation, Inc. ("USSF"), alleging violations of Sherman Act sections 1 and 2, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, and Clayton Act section 7, § 18, and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the section 1 and Clayton Act counts. After trial on the section 2 count, the jury returned a special verdict leading to judgment in favor of defendants. Players now appealed the disposition of all three counts. 

Issue:

Was the summary judgment on the 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 claim proper?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

As an initial matter, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 claim. The court found that the effects of defendants' arrangement simply were too uncertain to warrant application of the per se rule. Moreover, even if the § 1 claim had not been dismissed on summary judgment, the jury still would have found in favor of defendants on the grounds that the market alleged in the complaint had not been proved. The court also affirmed the judgment for defendants on the 15 U.S.C.S. § 2 claim, as the players had failed to establish the relevant market as alleged. Furthermore, the players failed to show the requisite prejudice resulting from alleged errors in certain jury instructions and certain evidentiary rulings. The court concluded by affirming the dismissal through summary judgment of the players’ 15 U.S.C.S. § 18 claims. The court agreed with the district court that there was no liability under the statute where the formation of the soccer association did not involve the acquisition or merger of existing business enterprises, but rather the formation of an entirely new entity which itself represented the creation of an entirely new market.