## Facts

- Harry Toscano, a longtime professional golfer, sought to compete on the Senior PGA Tour after turning 50.
- The PGA Tour operated the Senior PGA Tour and controlled event participation through tournament eligibility rules, including limited field sizes and discretionary selection criteria that considered fan interest and name recognition.
- Toscano alleged the eligibility rules favored marquee players and insulated incumbent Tour members and player-directors from competition by other senior golfers.
- Toscano also challenged PGA Tour rules governing media rights and “conflicting events,” alleging they impeded rival senior tours and alternative competitive outlets.
- Toscano claimed these practices reduced his opportunities to play, earn prize money, and obtain related income.
- The PGA Tour moved for summary judgment on Toscano’s federal antitrust claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Toscano had antitrust standing under Clayton Act § 4 to challenge the media-rights and conflicting-events rules.
2. Whether the Senior PGA Tour eligibility rules unreasonably restrained trade in violation of Sherman Act § 1 under the rule of reason.
3. Whether the eligibility rules were supported by sufficient procompetitive justifications to survive rule-of-reason scrutiny.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all antitrust claims.
- Toscano lacked antitrust standing to challenge the media-rights and conflicting-events rules because any direct injury would fall primarily on broadcasters, promoters, or rival tours, not on Toscano as a player.
- Toscano failed to produce sufficient evidence that the eligibility rules caused anticompetitive effects in the relevant market, as opposed to harm to him as an individual competitor.
- Even assuming some competitive harm, the court found the eligibility rules justified by legitimate product and operational reasons, including presenting a more marketable tour and maintaining workable field sizes.

## Legal Principles

- A private antitrust plaintiff must show antitrust injury and be a proper plaintiff under Clayton Act § 4; injuries that are remote, derivative, or primarily borne by third parties in a better position to sue do not confer standing.
- Under Sherman Act § 1’s rule of reason, the plaintiff must show substantial harm to competition (such as reduced output, higher prices, or diminished consumer choice), not merely reduced opportunities for a particular competitor.
- Sports-league eligibility and participation rules may be lawful when reasonably connected to legitimate objectives such as product quality, consumer demand, and operational constraints, and when the plaintiff cannot show net anticompetitive effect.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the PGA Tour because Toscano was not a proper plaintiff to attack the Tour’s media-rights and conflicting-events framework and, on the eligibility-rule challenge, he did not show substantial harm to competition and could not overcome the Tour’s legitimate justifications under the rule of reason.


Toscano v. PGA Tour, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (E.D. Cal. 2002)