NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, was a case in which the Supreme Court held that the NCAA television plan violated the Sherman and Clayton (related to preventing one company from becoming too powerful) Acts. These (related to preventing one company from becoming too powerful) laws were designed to prohibit group actions that limited/held down open competition and trade. The NCAA was an organization that controlled college athletics, and membership was (something you choose to do, but is not required), although NCAA schools were not allowed to play against non-NCAA teams. The case dealt with television rights to college football games, which were controlled by the NCAA and limited the appearance of university teams in…show more content… The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association sued to force the NCAA to stop the practice. The Supreme Court held that the NCAA's actions were a self-control (or control device) of trade and ruled for the universities.
After a full trial, the District Court held that the controls exercised by the NCAA over the televising of college football games violated the Sherman Act. The District Court defined the (clearly connected or related) market as "live college football television" because it found that different programming has a very different and lesser audience (attractive quality/request). The District Court then decided that the NCAA controls over college football are those of a "classic (group of businesses)" with an "almost complete and total control over the supply of college football which is made available to the networks, to television advertisers, and (in the end) to the viewing public. Like all other (groups of businesses, NCAA members have searched for/tried to get and (accomplished or gained with effort) a price for their product which is, in most events, (not…show more content… When the Court ended the NCAA's control over college-football telecasts, it replaced an (one company that controls too much) with as many as 100 separate sellers the Division I football-playing schools who could compete for the custom of many buyers, led by the three major over-the-air networks and trailed by different national and (related to a large area) cable systems, as well as local broadcasters. The people (who sued or are suing someone)' money-based experts had said in court/given proof, and their lawyers had argued, that such competition would expand (related to people who use a product or service) choice, increase output, and reduce price. Whether the people (who sued or are suing someone) really believed that they would be the ones to lose television money/money income in a competitive market is another matter. Since 1984 the market has certainly worked with respect to output and viewer choice. Saturday television audiences have usually had a menu of college football games from which to choose. The market has also worked with respect to the hit/effect on price, maybe to the unpleasant surprise of the people (who sued or are suing someone), as can be seen in the following figures:
