Under antitrust law, defining the relevant market is a critical part of the proof to establish that the defendant could have harmed the plaintiffs and must include all interchangeable products. 2/
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
My guess is that the jury was unconvinced that D1 and D2 US pro soccer leagues were actual markets given that fans/sponsors/players can freely go to other soccer leagues, other sports leagues, other countries' leagues, or other entertainment generally 3/
Once the relevant market is not established, then it doesn't matter whether there was a conspiracy to restrain trade since they haven't proven there was power to harm, which is why the verdict form directed the jury to skip the rest of the questions after answering no to this one
I have a vague memory of "what actually is a relevant market when it comes to pro soccer" being part of the case in the Relevent antitrust case as well. Does this have any bearing on that? I'm not sure what they are trying to establish as a relevant market in that one vs. this one.
Comments