## Facts

- The United States Football League (USFL) and its member clubs sued the National Football League (NFL), its commissioner, and certain member clubs, alleging monopolization and related antitrust violations in major-league professional football and adjacent markets.
- The NFL entered pooled-rights television contracts with ABC, CBS, and NBC for nationwide telecasts of NFL games.
- The network contracts were described as non-exclusive; none barred the networks from televising USFL games.
- The contracts were of limited duration and included renewal-related provisions such as rights of first negotiation and rights of first refusal.
- The USFL sought partial summary judgment claiming the NFL’s pooled network deals were unlawful as a matter of law because they violated an earlier federal antitrust decree and implementing order addressing an NFL pooled-rights arrangement.
- The NFL opposed, asserting that the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 provides an antitrust exemption for qualifying league-wide pooled broadcasting agreements.
- The NFL also moved to narrow or dismiss several USFL theories (including stadium access, government-related conduct affecting leases, disparagement, and control of qualified game officials) and to limit evidence concerning alleged prior conduct toward other rival leagues and prior antitrust litigation.

## Issues

1. Whether the NFL’s pooled network television contracts violated the earlier federal decree and implementing order concerning NFL pooled television rights, warranting partial summary judgment and injunctive relief.
2. Whether the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 exempted the NFL’s pooled network television contracts from antitrust attack and defeated the decree-based theory.
3. Whether specific categories of the USFL’s broader Sherman Act theories stated triable claims or were subject to partial summary judgment narrowing or dismissal.
4. Whether, and to what extent, evidence of alleged prior conduct toward other leagues and prior antitrust judgments or lawsuits involving the NFL could be used to prove an alleged overarching anticompetitive scheme.

## Decision

- The court denied the USFL’s motion for partial summary judgment challenging the NFL’s pooled network television contracts.
- The court held that the NFL’s current pooled network contracts were not barred by the earlier decree as construed and, in any event, were authorized by the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the NFL’s efforts to narrow the case, limiting certain marginal theories and evidentiary uses while leaving core Sherman Act claims for trial.

## Legal Principles

- A prior antitrust decree is construed in light of its specific language and context and is not treated as a categorical, perpetual bar to later conduct beyond the arrangement addressed.
- Intervening legislation can materially change the governing legal framework; when a later statute provides an express exemption, it may defeat decree-based attempts to declare conduct unlawful as a matter of law.
- The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 exempts certain joint agreements by professional sports leagues to sell pooled broadcasting rights, subject to statutory conditions.
- Antitrust liability requires allegations and proof of harm to competition, not merely harm to a competitor; courts may narrow claims that are conclusory, insufficiently specific, or lack a plausible competitive injury theory.
- Evidence of prior disputes or conduct involving other entities may be limited where its probative value is outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or undue consumption of time.

## Conclusion

The court refused to invalidate the NFL’s pooled network television contracts on a decree-based theory, concluding that the earlier decree did not categorically prohibit the challenged arrangements and that the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 provided express statutory protection for qualifying pooled broadcasting agreements; it also trimmed portions of the USFL’s broader antitrust case while leaving central monopolization and market-power issues for later resolution.


United States Football League v. National Football League, 634 F. Supp. 1155 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)