Pro Sports League Antitrust ‘Beliefs’: Applied Theory and the Rule of Reason

Roger Blair and Rodney Fort

Managerial and Decision Economics, 2017, vol. 38, issue 5, 655-663

Abstract: In antitrust rule of reason cases, courts weigh anticompetitive harm against consumer welfare offsets. In sports cases, the courts appear to accept claims that fans prefer more competitive balance to less, so that a potential welfare offset is any added enhanced competitive balance attributable to the anticompetitive activity. In addition, courts often decide that less intrusive alternatives may be available to accomplish the same competitive balance gain. From the applied theory perspective, this is troublesome. Theoretically, whether fans prefer more balance is a hypothesis about preferences that needs to be examined in detail for any particular case. Applied theory also is of aid in assessing whether a particular device under scrutiny, including so‐called less intrusive alternatives, should even be predicted to enhance balance. Wading through the foregoing produces food for thought for the courts. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:38:y:2017:i:5:p:655-663

Access Statistics for this article

Managerial and Decision Economics is currently edited by Antony Dnes

More articles in Managerial and Decision Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().