## Facts

- The American Football League (AFL) was organized in 1959 and began play in 1960 as a rival professional football league.
- The National Football League (NFL) was organized in 1920 and operated as the established professional football league, with 10–14 teams since 1933.
- The parties operated in interstate commerce and were subject to federal antitrust law.
- The AFL and member clubs sued the NFL and member clubs seeking treble damages and injunctive relief, alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize “major league professional football” under the Sherman Act.
- The case was tried in a bifurcated structure, with the court first determining liability (including proof of injury tied to each alleged violation) before any relief would be considered.
- The alleged anticompetitive conduct focused on inter-league competition concerning (i) franchise placement/expansion into key cities (including Dallas and Minneapolis–St. Paul), (ii) player acquisition, and (iii) television rights, including an NFL league-wide contract with CBS.
- During the liability stage, plaintiffs narrowed their claims and conceded they had not proved stand-alone violations regarding player acquisition or television rights, but maintained that the NFL’s overall course of conduct constituted § 2 violations.
- Plaintiffs claimed injury including lost competitive opportunities in particular cities and difficulty obtaining certain television arrangements.

## Issues

1. Whether the NFL possessed and exercised monopoly power in the market for “major league professional football” in violation of Sherman Act § 2.
2. Whether the NFL’s conduct, including franchise expansion decisions and television contracting, constituted an attempted monopolization or conspiracy to monopolize requiring specific intent and (for attempt) a dangerous probability of success.
3. Whether plaintiffs proved injury causally linked to the alleged Sherman Act violations sufficient to establish liability.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for defendants on liability.
- The court held defendants neither monopolized nor attempted or conspired to monopolize “major league professional football.”
- The court concluded the NFL lacked monopoly power because it could not control prices or exclude competition, as shown by the AFL’s ability to enter and operate, sign players, and obtain television arrangements.
- The court treated NFL expansion into Dallas and Minneapolis–St. Paul as consistent with legitimate competitive business decisions and not proof of a specific intent to destroy the AFL.
- The court found no adequate proof of specific intent or a dangerous probability of successful monopolization, and no basis for relief given the absence of an underlying violation.

## Legal Principles

- Monopoly power under Sherman Act § 2 requires power to control prices or exclude competition; historical dominance and size alone do not establish monopoly power where effective entry and competition exist.
- Attempted monopolization requires proof of specific intent to monopolize and a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power, not merely evidence of aggressive rivalry.
- Conspiracy to monopolize requires evidence of concerted action directed toward unlawfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power, including the requisite intent.
- Expansion into attractive markets and coordinated league conduct (including television contracting) may be lawful competitive behavior absent proof of exclusionary effect and specific monopolizing intent.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the AFL’s Sherman Act § 2 claims, finding that the NFL’s conduct reflected lawful competition rather than monopolization, and that the NFL lacked the power and intent necessary to establish monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy to monopolize; without liability, no damages or injunctive relief were available.


Am. Football League v. Nat’l Football League, 205 F. Supp. 60 (D. Md. 1962)