## Facts

- Professional basketball players led by Oscar Robertson sued the NBA, its member clubs, and the ABA and its teams, seeking relief on behalf of current, former, and future NBA players.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants restrained competition in the market for professional basketball player services through league rules and practices, including the college draft, a reserve clause in the standard player contract, and a compensation plan tied to player movement.
- Plaintiffs also challenged purported boycott/blacklisting practices aimed at limiting player mobility and suppressing inter-league competition for player talent.
- The suit sought treble damages and injunctive relief under Sherman Act §§ 1–2 and Clayton Act §§ 4, 16.
- In 1970, the court entered a preliminary injunction barring the NBA and ABA from consummating a merger, consolidation, or common draft that would end inter-league competition, while allowing limited discussions aimed at seeking a congressional antitrust exemption.
- In 1975, defendants moved for summary judgment and sought to dissolve or modify the merger-blocking injunction; issues concerning the propriety of class treatment under Rule 23(b)(1) were also presented.

## Issues

1. Whether the challenged restraints on player mobility and league competition were categorically immune from antitrust scrutiny under labor-related doctrines, warranting summary judgment.
2. Whether the action properly proceeded as a Rule 23(b)(1) class on behalf of current, former, and future NBA players given the shared impact of the challenged practices and the risk of inconsistent adjudications.
3. Whether the preliminary injunction preventing an NBA–ABA merger (or similar integration eliminating inter-league competition) should be dissolved or continued pending resolution of the antitrust claims.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment, finding the record did not establish antitrust immunity as a matter of law and that factual disputes remained concerning the origin and competitive effects of the restraints.
- The court upheld class treatment under Rule 23(b)(1), concluding class-wide adjudication was appropriate because individualized suits risked inconsistent rulings and could impair absent players’ interests.
- The court denied the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and maintained the merger-blocking order to preserve the status quo and prevent potentially irreparable harm from extinguishing inter-league competition before adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- Antitrust challenges to sports-league rules affecting player mobility (e.g., drafts, reserve systems, compensation mechanisms) are not automatically barred as “labor matters” where plaintiffs plausibly allege unilateral imposition or anticompetitive conduct beyond protected collective bargaining activity; the applicability of any labor-related shield may require factual development.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where material factual disputes exist regarding (i) whether restraints were the product of bona fide bargaining and (ii) their competitive effects in the labor market for player services.
- Rule 23(b)(1) certification is suitable for systemic challenges to league-wide restraints when separate actions could produce inconsistent obligations for defendants or practically impair nonparty players’ interests in uniform structural relief.
- A preliminary injunction may be maintained to prevent a league merger or similar integration that could eliminate competition in a relevant market while antitrust claims remain unresolved, particularly where dissolution risks irreversible market structure changes.

## Conclusion

The court kept the antitrust case moving forward by rejecting summary judgment, confirming a mandatory player class under Rule 23(b)(1), and continuing the injunction against an NBA–ABA merger to avoid eliminating inter-league competition before the legality of the challenged restraints could be determined.


Robertson v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 389 F. Supp. 867 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)