## Facts

- Thomas M. Collins was a sports agent who had been certified under the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) Regulations Governing Player Agents.
- The NBPA is the exclusive bargaining representative for NBA players and negotiates collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the NBA.
- The CBA included a provision (Article XXXI) barring NBA teams from negotiating with agents not certified by the NBPA.
- Collins’s certification lapsed while he was involved in litigation with a player-client alleging breaches of fiduciary duty; after settlement, Collins applied for re-certification.
- The NBPA committee responsible for agent regulation reviewed Collins’s conduct in connection with that representation and denied re-certification.
- Although the regulations provided an arbitration appeal process for adverse certification decisions, Collins sued in federal court instead.
- Collins alleged the certification scheme and denial amounted to a group boycott and monopolization under Sherman Act §§ 1 and 2, and also asserted Colorado tort claims for interference with contract and prospective business advantage.

## Issues

1. Whether the NBPA’s agent-certification regulations and the CBA provision restricting team dealings to NBPA-certified agents were exempt from Sherman Act scrutiny under the nonstatutory labor exemption.
2. Whether the denial of re-certification, in combination with the CBA restriction, could support Sherman Act § 1 and § 2 liability.
3. Whether Collins’s state-law interference claims could proceed where the complained-of conduct was taken pursuant to the union’s collective-bargaining functions and related privileges.

## Decision

- The district court granted summary judgment to the NBPA and Charles Grantham on all claims.
- The court held the challenged regulations and CBA provision were part of a legitimate collectively bargained structure governing player representation and fell within the nonstatutory labor exemption to antitrust laws.
- The court dismissed the state-law tort claims, reasoning that enforcement of the collectively bargained scheme did not constitute improper interference under state law.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed per curiam, holding there was no genuine dispute of material fact and adopting the district court’s reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- The nonstatutory labor exemption can shield union-employer arrangements from antitrust liability when the challenged restraint is a product of bona fide collective bargaining and is sufficiently related to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
- Union regulation of who may represent bargaining-unit members in employment negotiations, when implemented through collectively bargained mechanisms, may be treated as part of the union’s collective-bargaining role rather than a commercial restraint subject to Sherman Act analysis.
- Summary judgment is proper when the material facts are undisputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- State-law interference claims generally require wrongful or improper conduct; conduct privileged or authorized in the labor-relations context may not satisfy that requirement.

## Conclusion

The courts rejected an agent’s antitrust and tort challenges to the NBPA’s certification denial and the CBA’s restriction on noncertified agents, holding that the certification regime was tied to collective bargaining over player employment representation and therefore insulated from Sherman Act liability by the nonstatutory labor exemption, leaving no wrongful act to support state-law interference claims.


Collins v. Nat’l Basketball Players Ass’n, 850 F. Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1991), aff’d, 976 F.2d 740 (10th Cir. 1992)