## Facts

- Nassau Sports, a New York limited partnership, owned the newly franchised New York Islanders (NHL).
- Garry Peters, a veteran NHL center, played the 1971–72 season for the Boston Bruins under the NHL standard player contract containing an exclusive-services clause.
- After the season, the Islanders drafted Peters, and the Bruins executed an agreement assigning Peters’s contract and related playing rights to Nassau for the 1972–73 season.
- The assignment agreement included recitals characterizing Peters as an exceptional player, asserting that damages would be inadequate, and stating that injunctive relief would be appropriate if he played for another club.
- Peters knew of the assignment and negotiated with Nassau, but before reaching a finalized agreement he accepted a more lucrative offer from the New York Raiders, a WHA team owned by Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.
- Nassau sought to prevent Peters from playing for the Raiders, initially obtaining an ex parte temporary restraining order in state court; defendants removed the action to federal court.
- Nassau moved for a preliminary injunction in federal court to enforce its claimed exclusive right to Peters’s services for the 1972–73 season.

## Issues

1. Whether Nassau demonstrated a clear, enforceable contractual entitlement to Peters’s exclusive playing services for the 1972–73 season sufficient to support injunctive enforcement.
2. Whether Nassau satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and a balance of hardships favoring restraint.

## Decision

- The court denied Nassau’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- The court held that Nassau failed to show the clear contractual entitlement and equitable prerequisites required to restrain Peters from playing for the Raiders.
- The court declined to treat contractual recitals describing irreparable harm and player uniqueness as controlling on a court of equity.
- The court found Nassau’s showing of irreparable harm inadequate and determined that the balance of hardships did not favor injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; the movant bears a substantial burden to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm, with equitable considerations including relative hardship.
- Contract language asserting that damages are inadequate or that services are exceptional does not, by itself, establish irreparable harm or compel equitable relief; courts independently assess the evidence.
- In disputes over exclusive-services obligations in professional sports, injunctive relief is disfavored absent a clear contractual right and a concrete showing that monetary damages cannot provide adequate relief.
- Where an injunction would materially restrict a player’s ability to work during a perishable season and the plaintiff’s harm appears compensable in damages, the hardship balance may weigh against restraint.

## Conclusion

The court refused to preliminarily enjoin Garry Peters from playing for the WHA’s New York Raiders, concluding that Nassau Sports had not shown a sufficiently clear entitlement to exclusive services or irreparable harm, and that equitable considerations counseled against restraining the player’s employment during the season.


Nassau Sports v. Peters, 352 F. Supp. 870 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)