Hairston V. Pac 10 Conference

Hairston v. Pacific 10 Conference 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 101 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1996) Key Search Terms: Sherman Act, football, antitrust, university, NCAA Facts A suit was brought by former and current University of Washington football players against the Pacific Ten Conference (Pac 10) in reaction to sanctions levied by the conference after a ten-month investigation revealed several NCAA rules violations. These sanctions included: a two-year bowl ban, one-year television revenue ban, a limit of 15 football scholarships for two years, reduction of football recruiting visits allowed for one year, and a two year probationary period. The players asserted that the Pac 10’s probation of the university’s football program was a violation of Section One of the Sherman Act and breach of contract and sought injunctive relief. The players appealed the district court’s decision granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee, the Pac 10. Issue The issue is whether the harm of the sanctions levied against UW football program outweighs the sanctions procompetitive effects. Holding The players argued that the penalties were grossly disproportionate to the universities’ violations. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the NCAA’s product, which involves mainting the amateur status of student-athletes, is unique and cannot be preserved except through mutual agreement of member institutions. Expert testimony found that sanctions were within the range penalties at similar institutions. The court of appeals held that the players failed to show that the sanctions by the Pac 10 were an unreasonable restraint on trade. The appellants also argued that the conference and its members created a contract, and that the players were third-party beneficiaries of this contract. The Ninth Circuit held that the Pac 10 did not intend to assume a direct contractual obligation to every football player on a conference member’s team. Summarized By: Lucy Wess