NIT v. NCAA: The Antitrust Trial Begins

Mark Alesia of the Indianapolis Star has a great piece on the National Invitation Tournament 's (NIT) antitrust lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). (Alesia, "Antitrust Case Puts NCAA on Defense," Indianapolis Star, 8/1/2005). The trial begins today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the same trial court where Maurice Clarett won).

The NIT--which years ago was a genuine rival to the NCAA--is challenging the NCAA's requirement that, if invited, member teams attend the March Madness tournament. The NIT contends that the rule is anticompetitive, since it effectively eliminates competition for postseason basketball tourneys. The NIT maintains that postseason basketball should be open to competition, which could prompt schools to organize themselves (like in football), or lead to several March Madness-type tournaments (with, presumably, the NIT Tournament becoming more than just a losers' bracket). The NCAA disagrees, arguing that consumers and member schools benefit from a single national championship, and that, besides, member schools voluntarily assent to this rule.

The witness list features some interesting names. Texas Tech coach Bobby Knight will be testifying for the NIT by video, and Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski is on the witness list for the NCAA.

Alesia's article, which also runs in USA Today, features comments from Sports Law Blog friends and fellow law professors Gary Roberts, Paul Haagen, and Rick Karcher, who noted:

"Antitrust is always difficult, and it's even more difficult when it's applied to sports," said Rick Karcher, director of the Center for Law and Sports at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville. "It's totally different than if you're talking about the sale of widgets. Ford would love not to have to compete with GM. The New York Yankees still need the Pittsburgh Pirates.

"What's my gut reaction on how this is going to turn out? I think the NCAA can enact a less restrictive rule and still accomplish what it wants."

This should be a fascinating case to follow. For past coverage, check out Greg's excellent posts from 4/18/2005 and 4/5/2004. Skip Sauer of the Sports Economist also a great post from 3/29/2004.

Update 8/3/2005

Posted in: