ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Media & Entertainment Law Blogs -> Sports Law Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Media & Entertainment Law
: Sports Law BlogMaple Bats and Antitrust Law
By Rick Karcher, Michael McCann, Geoffrey Rapp, Greg Skidmore, and Howard Wasserman
ADVERTISEMENTS
Professor Christopher Robinette of Widener University School of Law and TortsProf Blog passes along a provocative student note written by Steve Matzura, who will be graduating from Widener Law next May. Matzura's note, which is being published by the Widener Law Journal, is titled, "Will Maple Bats Splinter Baseball's Antitrust Exemptions?: The Rule of Reason Steps to the Plate."Here's an excerpt:
* * *
To download the note from SSRN, click here.Maple baseball bats have become extremely popular among players throughout Major League Baseball (MLB). But maple bats continue to be a safety hazard because they break, injuring players, fans, and umpires. This comment explains the antitrust implications of an MLB rule that may restrict or qualify the use of maple bats to address the recent safety concerns. Any such restriction of the popular sports equipment may cause bat manufacturers, and perhaps players, to initiate an antitrust suit against MLB for an unfair restraint of trade. The comment?s analysis contemplates two judicially-created antitrust exemptions ? the baseball exemption and the nonstatutory labor exemption ? that almost entirely absolve MLB of liability for instituting a league rule even if the rule affects economic competition. The comment proposes that courts can interpret the exemptions narrowly to render them inapplicable, thereby reaching the merits to conduct a "rule of reason" analysis. The comment concludes that, even if a court finds the two antitrust exemptions inapplicable, the rule of reason and judicial deference to sports leagues will allow MLB to freely promulgate an equipment restriction instituted primarily for safety reasons?regardless of the effect on economic competition.* * *
Full post as published by Sports Law Blog on August 18, 2009 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Maple Leaf
Pulls Weiners Due to Listeria Concerns
Mississippi Antitrust
Costs Microsoft $100 Million
MasterCard
settles antitrust lawsuit with Amex for $1.8 billion
Visa, MasterCard
Antitrust with Discover Settled for $2.75 Billion
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
alleging freight forwarding antitrust.
Airlines Price Fixing
Antitrust Case Settled for $504 Million
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Maple Bats Growing Threat At Baseball Parks
Baseball's Maple Bat Controversy - Does Someone Have to Die
Whether Or Not Bats Were Made In Cooperstown







