## Facts

- Gunter Harz Sports, Inc., a Nebraska company, manufactured and sold tennis rackets and related stringing systems, including a “double-strung” racket design commonly called a “spaghetti racket.”
- The International Tennis Federation (ITF) imposed a temporary ban on double-strung rackets and later issued a rule defining permissible racket characteristics, effectively prohibiting the plaintiff’s design.
- The ITF’s stated concern was that double-stringing produced “undue spin” that would change the character of tennis.
- The United States Tennis Association (USTA), a New York nonprofit membership organization responsible for rules and sanctioning tournaments in the United States and an ITF member, honored the ITF’s temporary ban and then adopted the ITF’s permanent racket-definition rule for USTA-sanctioned play.
- The plaintiff claimed the USTA’s adoption and enforcement of the rule excluded its product from major competitive tennis, harming sales and constituting a concerted “group boycott.”
- The plaintiff sued under Sherman Act § 1 and sought injunctive relief and treble damages under Clayton Act §§ 4 and 16.
- The case was tried to the court (bench trial), and the opinion served as findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether USTA’s adoption and enforcement of the ITF-promulgated rule banning double-strung rackets constituted a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of Sherman Act § 1.
2. Whether the alleged restraint should be treated as per se unlawful (as a group boycott) or evaluated under the rule of reason given the context of sports rulemaking.
3. Whether the asserted objective of preserving the character and integrity of tennis justified any incidental competitive effects on a particular equipment manufacturer.

## Decision

- Judgment was entered for the USTA; the court found no Sherman Act § 1 violation.
- The court evaluated the equipment rule under the rule of reason rather than per se boycott doctrine.
- The court accepted the stated rationale that the rule was intended to preserve the nature of the game and maintain uniform competitive conditions.
- The court found insufficient proof that USTA conspired with commercially interested actors to exclude the plaintiff from the racket market.
- Requests for injunctive relief and treble damages were denied.

## Legal Principles

- Sports-governing bodies’ rules defining permissible equipment for competition are generally assessed under the rule of reason when tied to legitimate regulatory objectives, rather than condemned per se as boycotts.
- A Sherman Act § 1 claim requires proof of concerted action and an unreasonable restraint of trade; incidental harm to a manufacturer from a bona fide rule of play does not, by itself, establish illegality.
- In evaluating reasonableness, courts consider the nature of the organization, the purpose of the rule (e.g., preserving the character of the sport and uniform rules), and whether anticompetitive intent or effect is shown beyond the rule’s regulatory function.

## Conclusion

The court held that USTA’s adoption of an ITF equipment rule banning double-strung rackets was a reasonable exercise of sports rulemaking aimed at preserving tennis competition, and the plaintiff failed to prove an unlawful Sherman Act § 1 conspiracy or an unreasonable restraint of trade.


Gunter Harz Sports, Inc. v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, 511 F. Supp. 1103 (D. Neb. 1981)