#as a former basketball player the sports metaphors do mean a lot

[ghostlyeris]

thats!! our!! point guard!!

[eliteprepsat]

In my 10+ years of teaching at the college level, I’ve met a lot of students.

Recently, a colleague and I shared how professors we’ve both known have often referred to the “top 1%” of students they’ve taught in their careers. I quickly did a bit of rough math in my head, and it turns out that I have likely taught at least 1,500 students in my own career. This excludes the many students I’ve taught in test prep programs, after school programs, and summer programs. Add those, and I could probably at least double the total number of students I’ve taught to 3,000.

Using the “top 1%” metaphor, this means that a teacher who has taught for 10 years has about 15-30 students that come to mind when they think of “the best” students they’ve worked with.

The question, then, becomes: How do you, as a student, make it into that top 1%?

Making it into a teacher’s top 1% isn’t just for the sake of playing teacher’s pet. It’s practical. As a student, it benefits you to not simply “go through the motions” of school, being just another name or number on a roll sheet. Of course, having a good relationship with your teachers benefits you in that you will have better communication with them, which enhances your ability to learn while in their classes.

But, it can also benefit you long after their classes are over. If you’ve had great relationships with your teachers—even perhaps making it into their top 1%—they will be more likely to write you excellent letters of recommendation, which are vital to your success in the college admissions process.

So, with this in mind, below is a list of 6 great ways to stand out as a student so that teachers will give you strong recommendation letters.

1. Be reliable

Many of the best teachers admire students who don’t necessarily follow the rules. But, it’s important to clarify that this only applies to being an intellectual rule-breaker and thinking outside of the box. What teachers don’t appreciate are students who deliberately disobey rules that are established for the sake of helping their classes run smoothly.

This may seem like it goes without saying. But one of the simplest ways to be a great student is just to be reliable. You can do this by always completing your work, arriving to class on time, and showing up every day prepared and ready to participate.

It’s not so much that students stand out for being reliable; it’s that students stand out for being unreliable—in other words, for all the wrong reasons. So, take the first best step toward securing a strong recommendation letter this way.

2. Be a team player

Most of the best classrooms (virtual or otherwise) function like a sports team, where the teacher leads or guides (like a coach) and all of the students also have a role (like players). This stands in contrast to traditional (and largely outdated) classroom models where the teacher takes the only active role and the students are merely passive observers.

Good teachers relish students who are excellent team players—who listen actively, participate by making meaningful contributions to discussions, and generally exude a positive energy.

In my own experience, I’ve found that classes tend to function like the organic and often unpredictable flow of a basketball game. Some of the best moments in my classes have occurred when my game plan suddenly (and wonderfully) shifted because a student raised a compelling idea in discussion that we then pursued. I think of such students as my best teammates, giving me assists as I try to make a play.

But being a great team player in class doesn’t just involve your interactions with your teacher. It also involves how you interact with your other teammates, or classmates. Some of the strongest students I’ve worked with stand out in my memory not just because of how they treated their classmates, but also because of how their classmates responded to them.

Just as the best team players know when to lead and when not to hog the ball so as to let others on the team shine, so too do the best students know when to speak up and step in when their classmates need help, but also when not to dominate the conversation, actively listening instead so as to let their classmates also shine.

3. Demonstrate curiosity

Students often believe—incorrectly—that the best way to be a team player is simply to be the most “intelligent” student in the room. In reality, raw intelligence is typically not the attribute that good teachers appreciate most in their students. Instead, this attribute is curiosity.

What does it mean to “demonstrate curiosity” as a student? Generally speaking, it means having an open mind. If you encounter course material that is initially off-putting because it seems too difficult, for instance, don’t run the other way out of frustration. Instead, ask yourself: Why might this material be of interest? Why have people devoted their entire lives to its study? What could I learn from it?

With that said, another component of demonstrating curiosity is the ability (or at least the attempt) to draw connections between course material and your own interests or life. So, even if you are taking a class in a seemingly “foreign” subject (e.g. if you are in the sciences but taking a world literature course), again ask yourself what you might have to learn from this material. Perhaps you see parallels between the formal structures of storytelling and what you have been learning in one of your engineering classes. Bring this up in discussion! Not only will you find that the course is far more worth your time because it is applicable to something you care about, but your teachers will also appreciate your curiosity.

4. Visit office hours

The best letters of recommendation are written by teachers who really know the student in question. Although there are exceptions to this rule, it’s typically not ideal, then, to request a letter from a teacher who you only studied with for a brief summer session, or who you never actually spoke to in person (say, from an online course).

In my own experience, the recommendation letters I write are better the more I know a student. So, if there is a teacher with whom you feel comfortable, don’t be afraid to open up to them a bit.

Why is this helpful for recommendation letters, exactly? If you are taking several AP courses while also juggling a heavy load of extracurriculars, a resume or transcript will show this at a glance. But if you are taking night classes while also raising a child or taking care of your ailing parents, for instance, the extent of your hard work will not likely appear anywhere on paper.

If you take the time to open up about the particulars of your life to a teacher, however, they can speak to your perseverance and grit in a meaningful recommendation letter to an admissions committee. That added understanding could very well mean the difference between a college acceptance or none.

You may or may not have opportunities to open up to your teachers during class. And you may or may not feel comfortable doing so. So, take advantage of your teachers’ office hours, when you can speak with them one-on-one.

5. Turn in an impressive assignment

When writing recommendation letters, the best teachers will not write generally about the student in question. Rather, they will look for specifics to discuss. After all, specific examples are what help readers visualize and relate to what a writer is describing, ultimately becoming convinced of their claims.

In order to do this, teachers need to be supplied with specifics to write about you. So, if you’ve written an especially impressive paper, completed a particularly dynamic presentation, or organized a uniquely inspiring event, bring this to your teacher’s attention. It will give them something to focus portions of their recommendation letter around, and they can point to these specific examples as evidence of your mastery of a subject, your hard work, your passion, or any of your other exceptional traits.

Ultimately, your teacher’s reflections on these detailed examples will give admissions committees something to remember about you as a candidate, which is crucial considering how many applications colleges receive each year.

6. Stay in touch

Typically, students don’t require recommendation letters immediately upon completing a course. So, it can be difficult having to reach out to former teachers semesters—or even years—down the road. In this case, it can feel awkward asking them for the favor of writing a letter since you haven’t spoken in some time. You may wonder if they even remember you!

To avoid this, I suggest emailing your teachers not long after a course has ended just to say a friendly hello, to share that you enjoyed their class, and to ask if they might be open to writing you a recommendation letter in the future. Although you might not require the letter immediately, asking in advance in this way is a good idea for a few reasons. It demonstrates that you are taking initiative by being so forward thinking about your future success. It also helps to plant a seed in your teacher’s mind; they will be more likely to remember you when you reach out to officially request a letter one day.

Beyond this initial email, it is a good idea to simply stay in touch with your former teachers, especially if you believe you will request a recommendation letter from them eventually. Most teachers love to hear from their former students and get caught up on all of their wonderful achievements. So, don’t be shy about sharing yours. Again, if you do so, your teachers will be more eager to help when you contact them for recommendation letters.

Some final advice for requesting letters of recommendation

When requesting a letter of recommendation, it’s always best to ask your teachers well in advance of the deadline so that they have plenty of time to complete the work. This means that you should usually aim for giving them at least 4 weeks and never less than 2 weeks. Remember that while they typically understand that writing such letters comes with the job and are happy to help out their students in this way, teachers are very busy people. So, do what you can to make the task as simple as possible for them.

Beyond giving them ample time to complete their letters, you can also simplify the task for your teachers by giving them a copy of your resume/accomplishments and a few of your strongest assignments as references. Finally, be sure to always ask at least one more individual than is required as a backup in case your original letter writer doesn’t come through or fails to get their letter in on time.

Stacy G. is a writer and teacher who has taught composition, literature, and creative writing courses at a number of public and private universities across the U.S. She has also taught SAT, AP English, and Literature SAT Subject Test courses at Elite Prep. She likes poetry, dogs, and poetry about dogs.

[investmart007]

United States News: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at Notre Dame Law School

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/xaUSKC

United States News: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at Notre Dame Law School

Onward to Victory: Competition Policy in Collegiate and Professional Sports

United States – Good afternoon. Thank you to Dean Newton for inviting me to be with you today and discuss the intersection of organized sports and antitrust law. I first knew Dean Newton as my constitutional law professor in 1992. I arrived with a science background and relatively little sense of what to expect in a law school classroom. But I was instantly hooked by Dean Newton’s class. She is a wonderful scholar and academic, and a testament to the power of excellent teaching and administration. I am grateful to her for furthering my love of the Constitution and I’m honored to be here today.

Notre Dame is an ideal setting to talk about competition policy in collegiate and professional sports—and not just because we find ourselves on the eve of the storied Notre Dame-Michigan football game. As a highly respected academic institution, known for its success both on and off the field, Notre Dame has cultivated an enviable place in our national sports consciousness. The Fighting Irish played their inaugural football game in 1887. Since then, Notre Dame’s sports prowess has cemented its place in athletic history. Many people may not be aware, however, that for the past eleven years, Notre Dame has ranked first in the nation for its 98 percent student-athlete graduation rate, the highest for all universities with football programs, and I commend you for that.

I also would be remiss not to add that Notre Dame features prominently in my Front Office. My old friend and colleague, Roger Alford, is on leave from the law school faculty to serve as my deputy for international affairs. He is doing some groundbreaking work and I am grateful he agreed to serve. I am also grateful to Notre Dame for allowing him to do it. Also, my counsel, Bill Rinner, is a proud Notre Dame alumnus and an incredible legal mind, who just this week became a father to another potential Fighting Irish. One of our top litigators, Julie Elmer, is also an alum.

Today, I wish to share some lessons and observations about antitrust policy in collegiate and professional sports. The sports industry is fascinating for competition lawyers because it reflects a hydraulic tension between competition and necessary cooperation.

That is leagues, teams, and governing bodies require collaboration so that on-the-field competition can take place – but anything less than intense competition makes sports less attractive to players and fans alike. It’s not surprising then that U.S. courts are often tasked with distinguishing between necessary collaboration and anticompetitive conduct in an industry whose very essence is competition.

The realities of organized sports make the application of the antitrust laws to sports unique. Just as in music and other entertainment industries, however, the considerable evolution of the business of sports over the last century prompts us to take a fresh look at competition policy in an industry that’s as much a part of our national economy today as it is part of our culture.

Like so many of you, I have a deep love and admiration for sports. As a kid from Los Angeles and a devoted UCLA alumnus, I am proud of the fact that UCLA has the most team sport national championships of any college in the nation. Growing up, I cheered for only two college football teams: the Bruins and any team playing the Trojans. I know that we, in this room, share that last point in common.

Whether it’s Notre Dame versus Michigan, UCLA versus USC, or Duke basketball versus North Carolina, rivalries tell us something about why Americans love sports: for both athletes and sports fans, raw competition and love of the game offer lessons in perseverance, triumph, and teamwork.

To quote the late Byron White, the greatest athlete to serve on the Supreme Court, “[s]ports constantly make demands on the participant for top performance, and they develop integrity, self-reliance and initiative. They teach you a lot about working in groups, without being unduly submerged in the group.” Of course, the late Justice knew something about top performance. A talented football, basketball, and baseball player at the University of Colorado, Justice White was a runner up for the Heisman Trophy in 1937, a Rhodes Scholar, and a first round NFL draft pick.

Sports are an integral part of American culture and identity. Football is as much a staple of Thanksgiving in many households as are turkey and stuffing. Sports metaphors have even invaded our language. If you’ve ever used “ballpark” to mean a broad range within which a comparison is possible, “end around” to describe an evasive tactic, or “taking off the gloves” to mean attacking without mercy, know that you have used an idiomatic expression derived from baseball, football, and boxing, respectively.

The history of sports in America also reaffirms the idea that we are a nation of innovators. The country that invented some of the most successful and pioneering companies in the world also invented modern baseball, basketball, American football, and, of course, the newest sports phenomena, mixed martial arts, as made popular around the world by the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Like antitrust policy, competition is the lifeblood of sports. In sports, as in antitrust policy, we don’t pick winners and losers, but provide rules designed to promote the competitive process and let competition determine the winner.

Let me speak now about the antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act has been a favorite vehicle for challenging conduct in sports. Enacted in 1890, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade or commerce. These prohibitions can be enforced by either the government or private litigants. U.S. courts are routinely asked to address antitrust challenges in sports precisely because organized sports require agreement to assure fair play, consistency, and organization.

Although antitrust can seem like an esoteric discipline, sports fans should care about antitrust and antitrust lawyers should care about sports for at least three reasons. First, sports teach us important lessons about the structure of our government. Second, antitrust challenges in sports reaffirm the flexible and resilient nature of antitrust law itself. And third, competition and its enforcement has helped sports improve and become a more enjoyable experience for the American consumer, fans like you and me, and for the athlete that makes it all happen.

Let me start with a lesson from antitrust and baseball. As many of you may know, baseball enjoys legal immunity from the antitrust laws. This was not granted to them by Congress but, in 1922, the Supreme Court famously decided in Federal Baseball Club v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs that the Sherman Act does not apply to the conduct of a professional baseball league because the business of baseball is not in interstate commerce. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that the business of baseball is not commerce but “giving exhibitions of baseball, which are purely state affairs.”

Although the late Justice had a narrow view of commerce, he astutely noted that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” That, of course, begs the question: what does contemporary experience teach about the business of baseball today? More specifically, what does the experience of generating $10 billion in annual revenue suggest about whether the business of exhibiting baseball is commerce?

Since the Federal Baseball Club decision 96 years ago, the Supreme Court heard at least two challenges to baseball’s exemption, the last one 45 years ago, and has declined to overturn it in both cases.

One of those challenges was brought by Curt Flood, a centerfielder who was traded from the Cardinals to the Phillies in 1969. Under baseball’s reserve system, the Cardinals retained the right to Flood’s services even when his contract expired. As a practical matter, the reserve clause prevented Flood from entering into a contract with another team, and allowed the Cardinals to reassign, trade, sell, or release him. Flood refused to report to the Phillies. On Christmas Eve 1969, Flood wrote a letter to Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn:

After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes. I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.

It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing. I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision. I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season.

Kuhn denied the request, citing the reserve clause in Flood’s contract.

Flood then sued both the Commissioner and Major League Baseball for violations of the antitrust laws, specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act. His lawyer, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, argued that baseball’s reserve clause depressed wages and limited players to one team for life. Despite Flood’s high salary for the time, he likened the reserve clause to slavery.

By 1972, Flood v. Kuhn was heard by the Supreme Court. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, described the antitrust exemption for professional baseball as an “exception and an anomaly” but one entitled to stare decisis. Despite its concerns about the baseball exemption, the Court’s majority opined that any inconsistency or illogic surrounding the baseball exemption is to be remedied by Congress and not by the Supreme Court.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Douglas described the baseball exemption as “a derelict in the stream of the law that [the Supreme Court], its creator should remove.” Of course, Justice Douglas also had some unusual legal views like giving trees standing to sue for their own protection, but in his Flood dissent, he was on to something. Justice Marshall, who also dissented, wrote:

The importance of the antitrust laws to every citizen must not be minimized. They are as important to baseball players as they are to football players, lawyers, doctors, or members of any other class of workers. […]

Had the Court been consistent and treated all sports in the same way baseball was treated, Congress might have become concerned enough to take action. But, the Court was inconsistent, and baseball was isolated and distinguished from all other sports.

Twenty-six years later, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998, whose purpose, as Congress stated it, is “to state that the major league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws” and grant them the same antitrust rights as basketball and football players. The act repealed baseball’s antitrust exemption for issues directly relating to the terms and conditions of player employment. It does not, however, apply to minor leagues and minor league reserve clauses and several franchise ownership issues.

There is one additional lesson we can draw from the baseball exemption story: markets operate best when unencumbered by anticompetitive restraints. Five years after Curt Flood lost his case before the Supreme Court, arbitrator Peter Seitz awarded free agency status to two Major League Baseball pitchers. Eventually, baseball’s reserve system was abolished in favor of a negotiated free agency. In addition to ensuring player mobility, free agency allowed players to bargain for better wages and conditions of employment. According to retired professor Ed Edmonds, Notre Dame’s resident sports law expert, it also resulted in decades of phenomenal salary growth and an expansion of the Major League Baseball Players Association as a formidable force in bargaining with team owners.

Such is the power of the free market when unreasonable restraints give way to competition.

Now, lesson two.

Controversies surrounding the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and its affiliates have been a hotbed of private antitrust litigation. For over a century, the NCAA has set rules governing the eligibility of athletes at more than 1,000 member colleges and universities. While it has an important role in maintaining academic standards and codes of conduct for student-athletes, it is unquestionably a substantial commercial enterprise that generates over $1 billion annually. This duality is often at the heart of antitrust challenges against the NCAA.

The NCAA is well known for its embrace of amateurism. It has implemented and defended limits on student-athlete compensation and interactions with professional sports leagues to try to promote and protect that amateurism. Athletes can lose amateur status by, among other things, signing a contract with a professional team or entering the draft of a professional league. They also cannot receive pay based on their athletic ability. That means that student-athletes cannot be paid from endorsements or boosters, or share in the revenue that they help generate for the NCAA and its affiliates each year. As one appellate court recently put it, these rules can “promote amateurism,” which may, in turn, help “increas[e] consumer demand for college sports.”

The tension between eligibility rules that promote amateurism and what some have challenged as an anticompetitive agreement to fix at zero a student-athlete’s compensation was central to the landmark O’Bannon v. NCAA case. In that case, former all-American UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon had learned that he was depicted in a college basketball video game without his consent or compensation, and he filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated college football and basketball players. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the NCAA’s rules preventing student-athletes from being compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The district court held that the NCAA’s total ban on compensation for student-athletes is anticompetitive and found that a less restrictive alternative would be to allow member schools to grant scholarships up to the full cost of attendance and to hold up to $5,000 of their licensing revenues in trust for the student-athlete after college.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that NCAA regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny, but struck down the deferred compensation trust framework. The Court of Appeals noted that the NCAA’s total ban on compensation was “more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market.” In accordance with these principles, the Court held that the Sherman Act requires the NCAA to “permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes.”

Our antitrust laws promote vigorous competition and are flexible enough to take into account amateurism as one of many market characteristics that may drive demand for college sports. As the Supreme Court has observed, in some instances, college sports require some restraints on competition if the product is to be available at all. Such restraints, however, require a careful balancing of the proffered justification of the restraint against harm to competition. In other words, amateurism, although a laudable goal, in itself does not grant antitrust immunity, and rules designed to promote amateurism need to be carefully tailored so they don’t unreasonably limit competition.

I am encouraged that reinvigorated public debate and an evolving understanding of the college sports market have spurred positive changes at NCAA schools. For example, the NCAA’s transfer rules have been modified to give players more flexibility. Also, the NCAA recently announced reforms that will allow certain college basketball players to speak to agents and more actively consider the National Basketball Association draft without forfeiting their eligibility. In addition, the NCAA now permits scholarships up to the full cost of attendance, which can be awarded for a multi-year period covering the student’s full period of eligibility.

I applaud these procompetitive changes and am proud of the role the Antitrust Division has played in advocating for increased competition. I hope the NCAA will go further, as needed, to implement new rules or modify existing ones to promote increased competition for student-athletes. In the future, for example, I hope to see schools consider competing fully to fund student-athletes’ educational expenses, for example, by offering graduate education tuition incentives and job training as they compete for top student-athletes.

The last major lesson I wish to discuss is that competitive markets improve on-the-field competition and the consumer experience. In the late 1990s, some may recall that NBC was shut out of the opportunity to broadcast National Football League (“NFL”) games. In 2000, NBC announced the formation of the XFL, a joint venture with the World Wrestling Federation. The XFL’s opening game took place in February 2001, less than one week after the NFL Super Bowl. Although it only lasted one season, the XFL competed, to some degree, with the NFL by promoting entertainment value and individualism as a brand. The story behind the creation of the XFL is well documented in an ESPN 30 for 30 episode, “This Was the XFL,” directed, of course, by Notre Dame alumnus, Charlie Ebersol.

Nearly two decades later, the XFL announced it will be revived in 2020. As competition would have it, shortly thereafter, the Alliance of American Football (“AAF”) was announced as another upstart competitor to the XFL. Notably, the AAF is slated to beat the revamped XFL to market by a full year and already has a television distribution deal with a major network. That network has also agreed to sixty percent fewer commercial breaks and no television timeouts. While the ultimate success of the XFL and the AAF remains to be seen, the race to market and improved viewer experience reflect the hallmarks of competition that effective antitrust policy promotes to the benefit, ultimately, of the consumer.

Newcomers like the XFL may be unlikely to threaten the NFL’s position as the dominant professional football league in the United States. Nonetheless, some of the XFL’s production and broadcast innovations – like widespread use of Skycam and on-field microphones– are now used more regularly by the NFL, a demonstrated consumer benefit of competition.

And, of course, many may recall the United States Football League (“USFL”), which was created to compete with the NFL and lasted three seasons in the 1980s. When it tried to compete head on, they filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The USFL won part of the legal case, but was only awarded damages of one dollar. Four days later, the USFL owners voted to suspend operations. But the NFL ultimately had to pay $5.5 million in attorneys’ fees. The competitive impact of the USFL, nevertheless, is undisputed. From on-field innovations – two-point conversions, the instant replay, and expansion teams – to a multitude of greater players, the NFL product became better.

These examples demonstrate that antitrust is a forward-looking exercise that ultimately improves choice and quality for sports fans.

Today, organized sports are more than leisurely pastimes. The sports industry is a profitable one whose goals and unique attributes are complemented by sound antitrust policy. With limited exception, leagues, governing bodies, or teams can and should have their conduct tested against the crucible of the antitrust laws. That is why the Antitrust Division remains an active observer that is ready to investigate and enforce the antitrust laws where the evidence suggests that conduct or a transaction has resulted in, or is likely to result in, harm to competition.

Indeed, several recent enforcement actions have touched on competition in the sports industry. In June 2018, the Antitrust Division announced that it would require the Walt Disney Company to divest 22 Regional Sports Networks (“RSNs”) as a condition of its $71.3 billion acquisition of certain assets from Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. Without the required divestitures, the transaction would likely result in higher prices for cable sports programming. Disney agreed to divest the 22 RSNs.

The Antitrust Division has also enforced the antitrust laws in conduct matters touching professional sports. In November 2016, the Antitrust Division filed a complaint to stop DIRECTV and its parent, AT&T, from orchestrating a series of unlawful information exchanges between DIRECTV and three of its pay television competitors during the companies’ negotiations to carry the Dodgers pay television channel. The companies settled that case with the Division in March 2017. The settlement enjoined the companies from sharing competitively-sensitive information with their rivals and required corporate monitoring, antitrust training, and corporate compliance programs.

As for my hopes regarding the sports antitrust litigation currently pending in federal courts across the country, I recognize that, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, the role of the courts is to call balls and strikes. But in so doing, they should, in Justice White’s parting words upon retirement, make those calls in a manner that is “clear, crisp, and leave[s] … as little room as possible for disagreement about their meaning.”

—–

SOURCE: news provided by JUSTICE.GOV on Friday, August 31, 2018.

[jammixes-blog]

Zero

Zero is at the center of everything. That's a Good point. However, as a hockey score, like 0 for the Canadiens and 6 for the Maple Leafs. That sucks, as a Canadiens fan. Hockey and sports teach us about loyalty. Even if T.O is my home, i stick to my team. For basketball, the Raps are my team. For football, it can only be the Niners or Raiders. For baseball, the Yankees, since i could see the stadium, from my apartment in the projects, at 164th and Grand Concourse, in the Bronx. They won that year! For soccer, the French team, then, Germany, since i was 4 years old. For tennis, i don't follow anymore. But, for wit, it's definitely Marx, not Karl, but Groucho. What a kool-ass Genius. If didn't have fun with him, he, at least, tripped you out, pretty sure of it. A lot of Geniuses hate to be previsible, they'll do the opposite of what you expect. To show you that your expections have no weight in their life. Expect away, and you shall be deceived. Surrender to God, and you shall be rewarded. Those who have expectations haven't thought thoroughly... Let It Grow. Nothing stays around, Good or Bad. But, the bad feels like an eternity, while the good feels like a snap. The people you love, and who love you, should be your reason to live...as long as you can. I refuse, for people who love me, to sacrife their life, for me. I've made my prayers long time ago, i want to sacrifice myself for them, body, mind, and soul. Otherwise, i wouldn't be able to live with myself. My Pappich, my Mamouné, and my PC, are more important to me, than myself. I would rather be broke, with the people i love, than rich, alone. If i had it, i would trade all the money in the world, for the Health of the people i love. No one you love can ever be replaced, by all the money in the world. If i have to be a monkey, in a circus, to raise money, to save the life of someone i love, i'll do it. Money is just a concept, that's my Craft, i can come up with money, anytime, all i need is a good business partner. But, the life of my loved ones is something i cannot create... It takes a Dad and a Mum to create a little Revolution... Leaving before time is not an option, when it's possible to stick around...at least for people who love you. There is no way i would allow anyone to sacrifice themselves for me. And, if it's a question of money, i want none of it. No one is dying, if they refuse to. You get what you want, in life. If you have to struggle to live, do it. If someone who loves you insists of giving you money to heal, take it. I won't take money that comes from a human being paying it with their life. The way things work is not always we want things to work. This is where God intervenes, in the shape of others. No one can decide anything for me, or in my name, since i am a sane and responsible adult, legal in every way. But, they can treat me to the drink of their choice. I trust my talent, but not my business sense, i am not brilliant or cunning with money. At least, i am conscious of my weakness. It can be fixed, with the right partner or woman. The only place that is priceless is between the arms of a loved one. The secret to love is to love life. The secret to life is to live love. The Heart feels what the Mind doesn't know. Where there's life, there's love. And vice-versa. Love is the Greatest engine of Humankind. The purpose of loving is living. Roses will alway grow. There will always be a Spring, in every Garden. It's natural. Winter never lasts. The Sun always comes back. Canada prepares the soul to the harshest winters, as well as the most Glorious summers. With a Majestic fall, in the middle. The soul is a Fire that can't be estinguished. Love is a lesson in itself. Everybody can talk about love, but very few people practice it. Canada is worth every drop of Maple Syrup it produces. Which is a poor Metaphor for every drop of life Maple Trees Give us. In as much as "The Art of War" is impressive with wisdom, it omits a Major fact: "everything is 99.9% able to be calculated. Always be conscious of the 0.1%. This is what makes of a Master, a Genius. This 0.1% is actually the cornerstone of any speculation. La paix intérieure n'a pas de prix, mais, elle demande des sacrifices et une croyance aveugle en Dieu. To surrender to God is priceless. It transcends colour of skin, religion, sexual orientation, money, or social class. I am proud of who i am. Anyone who has a problem with it should solve that problem, without me. i have no time or energy for evil ego games. My opinion is as important as your opinion. And vice-versa. Unless you are a twat, tweeting metaphors from a night no one wants to see, during the day, in the light, and in the Sun. The Good news is, so far, in this world: you can pretty much do what you want, and be who you want, as long as you are Good to others and respect the Rule of Law. Those who fuck with you, then, are called: Criminals. As long as no one complains to my face, i assume, rationally and sanely, that i am not behaving out of the bounds society defined, in an arbitrary way, or going against the laws. Thus, i am a freeman, to do, think, and feel the way i choose and want. Something i want every human being to feel entitled to. I will only respect the judgement of Judges, appointed in La Hague, or locally, for an objective opinion. And i will only obey my parents, for their subjective love. Magic is performed to see, what we refuse to see. And, Magik is made to feel, what we have a hard time to feel. I suspect John Lennon had contacts with the O.T.O, in New York. I was tempted to join, when i was 24 years-old, in NYC. The lore of Knight Templars is small enough to fit a human Heart, but big enough to flood the whole World. The difference between "Night" and "Knight" is that the former brings Darkness, while, the latter spreads Light. The current US Pestilence and his Vice are Nights of the Ka Ka Kon. Their secret handshake is to poo on each other's face. I have no secrets, for anyone. Out of laziness. I'd rather be honest and spend time and energy with the people i love, or doing what i love, than waste time and energy wasting everyone's time and energy on bullshit. There are no secrets worth holding on to, for the Good people who want Everyone to go forward, happier, and richer, in every way. 1 dot alone can define ALL other 1 dot. It's never too late to be too soon. Let every page you write on be dedicated to God. Then, whatever expectation you have will be exceeded. You'll make sure of that, reading, re-reading, and verifying... To be square and on the level means that you are conscious of having a unique body, mind, and soul...to improve and work with. Then, you have to step up, three times, to be a fully Grown Rose, a Master. If you don't let the Kundalini snake go through your energy centers, then, you have never lived, since you never breathed. The nazis understood the "Vril", discovered, for the West, by a French diplomat, stationed in India. This was their only real weapon. However, the "Vril" was discovered long before, by Templars. The "Vril" is the result of an Alchemical process, within the Initiate. At that point, the Alchemist has no more ego and can feel raw energy, as it is, without getting filtered. Meditation, through any belief system, when performed properly, can harness this energy, in the body, the mind, or the soul. Like nazis stated, it can make the mind perceive an hour as a second. If you meditate enough, it becomes an instinct and a reflex. Suddenly, opening your "3rd eye" takes no effort. Channeling 1's energies enables 1 to affect the whole universe. The Truth is not as hard to find as the sources that try to cover it make it look like. We live more in an Age of Misinformation than an Age of Information. To get the real news, one has to know how to read in-between the lines. Even information, nowadays, has become esoteric. Individual Privacy, on the left-hand path of things, has become a Public Domain item. Hopefully, not for long. Privacy is what makes most of us feel Good, Safe, and Comfortable, at Home. This is vital to maintain a Fair, Compassionate, and Free society. No one Nation or valley made out of silicon is going to jeopardize this Basic Human Right, enforced by The Hague. It's called a "Crime Against Humanity". Human dignity is not a subject of debate or subjective preference, it's a birthright, bestowed upon every human being, at birth, and monitored by The Hague, legitimized by every Nation. It's not a joking matter, it's a very serious offence. We all decided, after WWII, that no one was allowed to fuck with an Innocent human being, body, mind, or soul, without paying exemplary damages and being severely punished. And, if that human being's family is targeted as well, then, no matter the immunity of the culprits, they will be tried and judged. Hitler preferred suicide, other self-proclaimed world leaders face 4 walls, for life. Knights do not knight themselves. Fake knight and fake leader, spreading terror and bullying everywhere, through all media available, in any way, re-tweeting neo-nazi propaganda. That's a Fool waiting to get hanged, with his Vice. As far as i am concerned: "You Are Fired, With Your Vice!". Verdict: Evil, inadequate, and counter-productive. Tendency to antagonize and provoke all Good people, out of resentment and jealousy. Unfit to be a team player or beneficial contribution to anyone. A parasite that has to be punished and discarded, as an example for lazy evil bully, self-serving racists, everywhere. In a world that needs healing, love, and compassion, your place is between 4 walls. Time to have fun, respect, and build bridges. We'll give you walls, no worries, and glass windows too. Your turn to dance, monkey and his Vicr, the rest of us are Good human beings. As for the valley with silicon, your execs are going to join their teachers and masters, penniless. I'm the 1 in charge of re-distributing, fairly, the money they owe ALL of us. But, start forgetting about Google, YouTube, Twitter, Yahoo, Apple, et al. We can create, and we will, better local alternatives. They WERE evil. Americans voted a leader who is an evil ego-centrical maniac racist who bullies the world and behave as an asshole so that America can be lazy and self-righteous, even with its failure to be productive, in any industry. Are Americans Good people? Do they deserve respect, compassion, or consideration? Right now, NO. They got sloppy, lazy, and racist. They are nullifying their own self. What's the beneficial use of such an America, to the world? It's a burden and an unfair punishment to the Fair, Happy, and Free World. And, it's an insult to human dignity, very few people would die for an "American Dollar" nowadays. In fact, ironically, but inevitaby, my 1 Rupees, from 1974, are going to be worth much more, soon. By the end of the day, the real fool is the one who tried to fool everybody else. Those who tried to spread "terror", daring to call their latest operation "Isis", are the ones who are going to be terrorized, with no delay, naked, at the mercy of the whole world, without any veil. Those who need love, have to Give love, first. Otherwise, you get caca, for giving caca. I need Love. I'm not ashamed of it, i don't function on Hate. I would do anything for love, but, i'll do nothing for hate. On the contrary, that's when i'm ready to fight, with more love than evil idiots can take. Something in tune with the "Art of War", which hints subtlely that once you conquer Hearts, you've won already. Although your army is ready to sacrife their life for you, just the consciousness of it will get the whole army safe and your victory...certain, over Evil, no matter how big the ranks are. The Heart is the most powerful and priceless weapon. One big heart can defeat an army of a Million mercenaries, easily. I need my Boss, a Woman, desperatly. No ego about it, and no fucking around, she'll boss me around, i'm that weak, alone. But, i always fucked it up. Or, others do it, for me. My prayer: "God, give me a fair chance with Pauline, please. I'll have to surrender and learn, as usual. But, this time, let me try, please.". As a human being, how do i choose a partner? Feeling. Beauty is a subjective perception. Everyone is beautiful to someone . That's beauty in itself. Finding beauty is an expression of love. That excludes pedophilia and vices, like the ka ka ka, or racism. That's called perversion, it's evil. I never understood pedophiles, but i always wanted to kick them, in the nuts. And, now that i have 2 nieces, Amayayus and Puce, i feel even more protective. I will destroy anyone who fucks with my 2 angels. No pity, there, i'm out for serious damage i won't kill, by principle, but make damages that can't be fixed. I hope Americans start getting the drift and get their Heart, not their wallet, to wake up. The leader and his Vice, you elected, are raping, or trying to, the world, the little girl, thinking it's ok, in your name. While, you know very well that you are getting fucked in the ass, too, without giving your consent. Are you a nynphomaniac (wrong spelling, you get it, in your face, fairly), are you evil, or just fucking too lazy to react? Bottom line, you take care of beinging down the rapists, or, the rest of us will do it, for a fee, which will cost you enough to hurt and remember, for a long time. Americans will become 2nd rate expats, anywhere. And their allies, like Saudi Arabia, punished and humiliated, ad well. Iran? Nothing against, personally. A Great Nation, with Great minds, abd a Great history. Ad a Lebanese Maronite, threatened? Not in the least. I side by Aoun, finally. Why not a Lebanon with different religions respecting the same Constitution. Shiite Muslims have, they let Maronites be Presidents? Althougj they are a demographic majority. Respect. They respect, i respect. As for Saudi Arabia, i lived there, they're animals, protected by the USA. I've seen public executions, of unfaithful wives, stoned to death. What an inhuman Nation. Then, there are cities of GIs, beyond Saudi legislation, where US citizens get Syrian, Ethopian, and Saudi whores, can smoke weed and drink alcohol. The US embassy is the place to get Red Label, for $300 a bottle. This is tbe Nation that forbids anyone who is not Muslim, to go to Mecca, as ifcthe Vatican was only for Catholics. I was not able to go there, unless i converted, for a year, to the Muslim religion and shavedcmy head. Fuck that, i'll keep my caca colour iquama (id), since i don't have a green iquama, reserved for Muslims. Between Saudi Arabia and Iran, i'll choose Iran. It did not detain the Lebanese PM, to show that it is the USA of the region, pooing on fellow arabs. What an evil place, Muslims, Sunii and Shites should team up to denounce such profanity. Did Mohammed intend for obscure tribes, in the Saudi desert, to be costodians of the holy Ka'ba, for most Muslims? No, he didn't. If Saudi Arabia haf no petrol, no one would give a fuck. But, the US did and fucked the UK on it, they had a legitimate colonizer claim. Trurh is, Mecca beĺongs to eveyone, i hope to go back tbere, one day, to see the stone, as a Maronite. As for Saudi Arabia interfering with Lebanon, back off. If a Maronite like me endorses Aoun and is willing to evolve and embrace Lebanese Shites and Iran, get the fuck out of our politics. You can buy our real estate for your vacations, being free, unlike home, where GIs fuck Princes in the ass, daily, to have fun. But, don't fuck with our cedar. Unlike your sand, It's solid, legitimate, and here to stay, despite the US dick in your royal Saudi ass. In my country, i could be President. I refuse my Dad to sacrifice his life for it. By right, i comecfrom the tribe Napoleon, Macron, and even Iran will protect. The USA trying, through its clownish leader, to descredit me, as insane, to steal the Cedar, ain't going to happen. To the Initiate, evil is trying to conquer the Cedar, through me. Not happening. By luck, i happen to be a Good Genius. My Dad's life is not a bargaining token, to spare my life, i refuse. All the money he got should heal him. I refuse to have him allocate it to me, in front of the whole world. I want the US Pestilence to try to kill me, since that's what's been going on. It's not you get my Dad, evil motherfucker, instead of me. My Dad gets healed and i provoke you to a Gentleman's duel. Do you know what Gentle and Man mean? You motherfucker. I am provoking donald trump of my asshole. You leave Dad alone, parasite, scumbag, son of a bitch's bitch. You wanna kill someone, hitler wannabe, come to me, evil coward weasel pedophile motherfucker. Prove to the world that you have a legitimate or Goid reason to fuck with me, my Dad, or my tribe. You fucking weasel cannibsl. I will kick you in the balls so hard, if you have any courage, son of a vermine, that you will never know what pkeasure feels like. You are evil and doomed, your days are counted, you know it, sad buffoon, you are like hitler in his bunket. Except, you are a weasel, scares scumbag. WE will hang you. Soon. Americans don't give a fuck about Lebanon, they think it might be in Europe or Africa. That's how much they care about the World. Basically, that's how much they care about you, if you are not a state, in the US of my Ass. That's why, 1 Nation, 1 Vote, is so crucial. It's called Fairness and Balance. Until Americans ammend their Constitution and kick out the Tweeting Pestilence, and its Vice, they are Perskna Non Grata worldwide. As long as the Pestilence and his Vice are in powet, all Americans are KKK, lazy-ass blood -sucking ticks, on the ass of yhe world. They will be bullied, fucked around, and treated as bad as possible, everywhere in the world, to make them feel home. Oh, yeah, i forgot raped and fucked in the ass, unfairly. What a Nation of losers!!! @trumpeddevilhangedproperlyaccordingtocraftrulesfortraitorsandimitations. When you expect something, you get nothing. But, when you expect nothing , you always get Something, in Return.

[investmart007]

United States News: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at Notre Dame Law School

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/xaUSKC

United States News: Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim Delivers Remarks at Notre Dame Law School

Onward to Victory: Competition Policy in Collegiate and Professional Sports

United States – Good afternoon. Thank you to Dean Newton for inviting me to be with you today and discuss the intersection of organized sports and antitrust law. I first knew Dean Newton as my constitutional law professor in 1992. I arrived with a science background and relatively little sense of what to expect in a law school classroom. But I was instantly hooked by Dean Newton’s class. She is a wonderful scholar and academic, and a testament to the power of excellent teaching and administration. I am grateful to her for furthering my love of the Constitution and I’m honored to be here today.

Notre Dame is an ideal setting to talk about competition policy in collegiate and professional sports—and not just because we find ourselves on the eve of the storied Notre Dame-Michigan football game. As a highly respected academic institution, known for its success both on and off the field, Notre Dame has cultivated an enviable place in our national sports consciousness. The Fighting Irish played their inaugural football game in 1887. Since then, Notre Dame’s sports prowess has cemented its place in athletic history. Many people may not be aware, however, that for the past eleven years, Notre Dame has ranked first in the nation for its 98 percent student-athlete graduation rate, the highest for all universities with football programs, and I commend you for that.

I also would be remiss not to add that Notre Dame features prominently in my Front Office. My old friend and colleague, Roger Alford, is on leave from the law school faculty to serve as my deputy for international affairs. He is doing some groundbreaking work and I am grateful he agreed to serve. I am also grateful to Notre Dame for allowing him to do it. Also, my counsel, Bill Rinner, is a proud Notre Dame alumnus and an incredible legal mind, who just this week became a father to another potential Fighting Irish. One of our top litigators, Julie Elmer, is also an alum.

Today, I wish to share some lessons and observations about antitrust policy in collegiate and professional sports. The sports industry is fascinating for competition lawyers because it reflects a hydraulic tension between competition and necessary cooperation.

That is leagues, teams, and governing bodies require collaboration so that on-the-field competition can take place – but anything less than intense competition makes sports less attractive to players and fans alike. It’s not surprising then that U.S. courts are often tasked with distinguishing between necessary collaboration and anticompetitive conduct in an industry whose very essence is competition.

The realities of organized sports make the application of the antitrust laws to sports unique. Just as in music and other entertainment industries, however, the considerable evolution of the business of sports over the last century prompts us to take a fresh look at competition policy in an industry that’s as much a part of our national economy today as it is part of our culture.

Like so many of you, I have a deep love and admiration for sports. As a kid from Los Angeles and a devoted UCLA alumnus, I am proud of the fact that UCLA has the most team sport national championships of any college in the nation. Growing up, I cheered for only two college football teams: the Bruins and any team playing the Trojans. I know that we, in this room, share that last point in common.

Whether it’s Notre Dame versus Michigan, UCLA versus USC, or Duke basketball versus North Carolina, rivalries tell us something about why Americans love sports: for both athletes and sports fans, raw competition and love of the game offer lessons in perseverance, triumph, and teamwork.

To quote the late Byron White, the greatest athlete to serve on the Supreme Court, “[s]ports constantly make demands on the participant for top performance, and they develop integrity, self-reliance and initiative. They teach you a lot about working in groups, without being unduly submerged in the group.” Of course, the late Justice knew something about top performance. A talented football, basketball, and baseball player at the University of Colorado, Justice White was a runner up for the Heisman Trophy in 1937, a Rhodes Scholar, and a first round NFL draft pick.

Sports are an integral part of American culture and identity. Football is as much a staple of Thanksgiving in many households as are turkey and stuffing. Sports metaphors have even invaded our language. If you’ve ever used “ballpark” to mean a broad range within which a comparison is possible, “end around” to describe an evasive tactic, or “taking off the gloves” to mean attacking without mercy, know that you have used an idiomatic expression derived from baseball, football, and boxing, respectively.

The history of sports in America also reaffirms the idea that we are a nation of innovators. The country that invented some of the most successful and pioneering companies in the world also invented modern baseball, basketball, American football, and, of course, the newest sports phenomena, mixed martial arts, as made popular around the world by the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Like antitrust policy, competition is the lifeblood of sports. In sports, as in antitrust policy, we don’t pick winners and losers, but provide rules designed to promote the competitive process and let competition determine the winner.

Let me speak now about the antitrust laws.

The Sherman Act has been a favorite vehicle for challenging conduct in sports. Enacted in 1890, Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits contracts, combinations, and conspiracies that unreasonably restrain trade or commerce. These prohibitions can be enforced by either the government or private litigants. U.S. courts are routinely asked to address antitrust challenges in sports precisely because organized sports require agreement to assure fair play, consistency, and organization.

Although antitrust can seem like an esoteric discipline, sports fans should care about antitrust and antitrust lawyers should care about sports for at least three reasons. First, sports teach us important lessons about the structure of our government. Second, antitrust challenges in sports reaffirm the flexible and resilient nature of antitrust law itself. And third, competition and its enforcement has helped sports improve and become a more enjoyable experience for the American consumer, fans like you and me, and for the athlete that makes it all happen.

Let me start with a lesson from antitrust and baseball. As many of you may know, baseball enjoys legal immunity from the antitrust laws. This was not granted to them by Congress but, in 1922, the Supreme Court famously decided in Federal Baseball Club v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs that the Sherman Act does not apply to the conduct of a professional baseball league because the business of baseball is not in interstate commerce. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that the business of baseball is not commerce but “giving exhibitions of baseball, which are purely state affairs.”

Although the late Justice had a narrow view of commerce, he astutely noted that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” That, of course, begs the question: what does contemporary experience teach about the business of baseball today? More specifically, what does the experience of generating $10 billion in annual revenue suggest about whether the business of exhibiting baseball is commerce?

Since the Federal Baseball Club decision 96 years ago, the Supreme Court heard at least two challenges to baseball’s exemption, the last one 45 years ago, and has declined to overturn it in both cases.

One of those challenges was brought by Curt Flood, a centerfielder who was traded from the Cardinals to the Phillies in 1969. Under baseball’s reserve system, the Cardinals retained the right to Flood’s services even when his contract expired. As a practical matter, the reserve clause prevented Flood from entering into a contract with another team, and allowed the Cardinals to reassign, trade, sell, or release him. Flood refused to report to the Phillies. On Christmas Eve 1969, Flood wrote a letter to Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn:

After twelve years in the major leagues, I do not feel I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes. I believe that any system which produces that result violates my basic rights as a citizen and is inconsistent with the laws of the United States and of the several States.

It is my desire to play baseball in 1970, and I am capable of playing. I have received a contract offer from the Philadelphia club, but I believe I have the right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision. I, therefore, request that you make known to all Major League clubs my feelings in this matter, and advise them of my availability for the 1970 season.

Kuhn denied the request, citing the reserve clause in Flood’s contract.

Flood then sued both the Commissioner and Major League Baseball for violations of the antitrust laws, specifically Section 1 of the Sherman Act. His lawyer, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, argued that baseball’s reserve clause depressed wages and limited players to one team for life. Despite Flood’s high salary for the time, he likened the reserve clause to slavery.

By 1972, Flood v. Kuhn was heard by the Supreme Court. Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, described the antitrust exemption for professional baseball as an “exception and an anomaly” but one entitled to stare decisis. Despite its concerns about the baseball exemption, the Court’s majority opined that any inconsistency or illogic surrounding the baseball exemption is to be remedied by Congress and not by the Supreme Court.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Douglas described the baseball exemption as “a derelict in the stream of the law that [the Supreme Court], its creator should remove.” Of course, Justice Douglas also had some unusual legal views like giving trees standing to sue for their own protection, but in his Flood dissent, he was on to something. Justice Marshall, who also dissented, wrote:

The importance of the antitrust laws to every citizen must not be minimized. They are as important to baseball players as they are to football players, lawyers, doctors, or members of any other class of workers. […]

Had the Court been consistent and treated all sports in the same way baseball was treated, Congress might have become concerned enough to take action. But, the Court was inconsistent, and baseball was isolated and distinguished from all other sports.

Twenty-six years later, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998, whose purpose, as Congress stated it, is “to state that the major league baseball players are covered under the antitrust laws” and grant them the same antitrust rights as basketball and football players. The act repealed baseball’s antitrust exemption for issues directly relating to the terms and conditions of player employment. It does not, however, apply to minor leagues and minor league reserve clauses and several franchise ownership issues.

There is one additional lesson we can draw from the baseball exemption story: markets operate best when unencumbered by anticompetitive restraints. Five years after Curt Flood lost his case before the Supreme Court, arbitrator Peter Seitz awarded free agency status to two Major League Baseball pitchers. Eventually, baseball’s reserve system was abolished in favor of a negotiated free agency. In addition to ensuring player mobility, free agency allowed players to bargain for better wages and conditions of employment. According to retired professor Ed Edmonds, Notre Dame’s resident sports law expert, it also resulted in decades of phenomenal salary growth and an expansion of the Major League Baseball Players Association as a formidable force in bargaining with team owners.

Such is the power of the free market when unreasonable restraints give way to competition.

Now, lesson two.

Controversies surrounding the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and its affiliates have been a hotbed of private antitrust litigation. For over a century, the NCAA has set rules governing the eligibility of athletes at more than 1,000 member colleges and universities. While it has an important role in maintaining academic standards and codes of conduct for student-athletes, it is unquestionably a substantial commercial enterprise that generates over $1 billion annually. This duality is often at the heart of antitrust challenges against the NCAA.

The NCAA is well known for its embrace of amateurism. It has implemented and defended limits on student-athlete compensation and interactions with professional sports leagues to try to promote and protect that amateurism. Athletes can lose amateur status by, among other things, signing a contract with a professional team or entering the draft of a professional league. They also cannot receive pay based on their athletic ability. That means that student-athletes cannot be paid from endorsements or boosters, or share in the revenue that they help generate for the NCAA and its affiliates each year. As one appellate court recently put it, these rules can “promote amateurism,” which may, in turn, help “increas[e] consumer demand for college sports.”

The tension between eligibility rules that promote amateurism and what some have challenged as an anticompetitive agreement to fix at zero a student-athlete’s compensation was central to the landmark O’Bannon v. NCAA case. In that case, former all-American UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon had learned that he was depicted in a college basketball video game without his consent or compensation, and he filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated college football and basketball players. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the NCAA’s rules preventing student-athletes from being compensated for the use of their name, image, and likeness violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The district court held that the NCAA’s total ban on compensation for student-athletes is anticompetitive and found that a less restrictive alternative would be to allow member schools to grant scholarships up to the full cost of attendance and to hold up to $5,000 of their licensing revenues in trust for the student-athlete after college.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that NCAA regulations are subject to antitrust scrutiny, but struck down the deferred compensation trust framework. The Court of Appeals noted that the NCAA’s total ban on compensation was “more restrictive than necessary to maintain its tradition of amateurism in support of the college sports market.” In accordance with these principles, the Court held that the Sherman Act requires the NCAA to “permit its schools to provide up to the cost of attendance to their student athletes.”

Our antitrust laws promote vigorous competition and are flexible enough to take into account amateurism as one of many market characteristics that may drive demand for college sports. As the Supreme Court has observed, in some instances, college sports require some restraints on competition if the product is to be available at all. Such restraints, however, require a careful balancing of the proffered justification of the restraint against harm to competition. In other words, amateurism, although a laudable goal, in itself does not grant antitrust immunity, and rules designed to promote amateurism need to be carefully tailored so they don’t unreasonably limit competition.

I am encouraged that reinvigorated public debate and an evolving understanding of the college sports market have spurred positive changes at NCAA schools. For example, the NCAA’s transfer rules have been modified to give players more flexibility. Also, the NCAA recently announced reforms that will allow certain college basketball players to speak to agents and more actively consider the National Basketball Association draft without forfeiting their eligibility. In addition, the NCAA now permits scholarships up to the full cost of attendance, which can be awarded for a multi-year period covering the student’s full period of eligibility.

I applaud these procompetitive changes and am proud of the role the Antitrust Division has played in advocating for increased competition. I hope the NCAA will go further, as needed, to implement new rules or modify existing ones to promote increased competition for student-athletes. In the future, for example, I hope to see schools consider competing fully to fund student-athletes’ educational expenses, for example, by offering graduate education tuition incentives and job training as they compete for top student-athletes.

The last major lesson I wish to discuss is that competitive markets improve on-the-field competition and the consumer experience. In the late 1990s, some may recall that NBC was shut out of the opportunity to broadcast National Football League (“NFL”) games. In 2000, NBC announced the formation of the XFL, a joint venture with the World Wrestling Federation. The XFL’s opening game took place in February 2001, less than one week after the NFL Super Bowl. Although it only lasted one season, the XFL competed, to some degree, with the NFL by promoting entertainment value and individualism as a brand. The story behind the creation of the XFL is well documented in an ESPN 30 for 30 episode, “This Was the XFL,” directed, of course, by Notre Dame alumnus, Charlie Ebersol.

Nearly two decades later, the XFL announced it will be revived in 2020. As competition would have it, shortly thereafter, the Alliance of American Football (“AAF”) was announced as another upstart competitor to the XFL. Notably, the AAF is slated to beat the revamped XFL to market by a full year and already has a television distribution deal with a major network. That network has also agreed to sixty percent fewer commercial breaks and no television timeouts. While the ultimate success of the XFL and the AAF remains to be seen, the race to market and improved viewer experience reflect the hallmarks of competition that effective antitrust policy promotes to the benefit, ultimately, of the consumer.

Newcomers like the XFL may be unlikely to threaten the NFL’s position as the dominant professional football league in the United States. Nonetheless, some of the XFL’s production and broadcast innovations – like widespread use of Skycam and on-field microphones– are now used more regularly by the NFL, a demonstrated consumer benefit of competition.

And, of course, many may recall the United States Football League (“USFL”), which was created to compete with the NFL and lasted three seasons in the 1980s. When it tried to compete head on, they filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. The USFL won part of the legal case, but was only awarded damages of one dollar. Four days later, the USFL owners voted to suspend operations. But the NFL ultimately had to pay $5.5 million in attorneys’ fees. The competitive impact of the USFL, nevertheless, is undisputed. From on-field innovations – two-point conversions, the instant replay, and expansion teams – to a multitude of greater players, the NFL product became better.

These examples demonstrate that antitrust is a forward-looking exercise that ultimately improves choice and quality for sports fans.

Today, organized sports are more than leisurely pastimes. The sports industry is a profitable one whose goals and unique attributes are complemented by sound antitrust policy. With limited exception, leagues, governing bodies, or teams can and should have their conduct tested against the crucible of the antitrust laws. That is why the Antitrust Division remains an active observer that is ready to investigate and enforce the antitrust laws where the evidence suggests that conduct or a transaction has resulted in, or is likely to result in, harm to competition.

Indeed, several recent enforcement actions have touched on competition in the sports industry. In June 2018, the Antitrust Division announced that it would require the Walt Disney Company to divest 22 Regional Sports Networks (“RSNs”) as a condition of its $71.3 billion acquisition of certain assets from Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. Without the required divestitures, the transaction would likely result in higher prices for cable sports programming. Disney agreed to divest the 22 RSNs.

The Antitrust Division has also enforced the antitrust laws in conduct matters touching professional sports. In November 2016, the Antitrust Division filed a complaint to stop DIRECTV and its parent, AT&T, from orchestrating a series of unlawful information exchanges between DIRECTV and three of its pay television competitors during the companies’ negotiations to carry the Dodgers pay television channel. The companies settled that case with the Division in March 2017. The settlement enjoined the companies from sharing competitively-sensitive information with their rivals and required corporate monitoring, antitrust training, and corporate compliance programs.

As for my hopes regarding the sports antitrust litigation currently pending in federal courts across the country, I recognize that, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, the role of the courts is to call balls and strikes. But in so doing, they should, in Justice White’s parting words upon retirement, make those calls in a manner that is “clear, crisp, and leave[s] … as little room as possible for disagreement about their meaning.”

—–

SOURCE: news provided by JUSTICE.GOV on Friday, August 31, 2018.