COLUMN/ THE ANTITRUST LITIGATOR
Antitrust Lessons From the Supreme Court’s NCAA Decision By JEFFERY M. CROSS
I
n June, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in NCAA v. Alston, an antitrust case involving the NCAA’s restrictions on education-related payments to student athletes. It grabbed headlines and caused debate on whether student athletes should be paid, but the decision was also important
10
with respect to antitrust law. It is important to consider how the Court approached its analysis, as well as its explanations for prior decisions. The Court reaffirmed its endorsement of a step-wise, burden-shifting approach to the rule of reason. The district court had applied a three-step,
TODAYSGENERALCOUNSEL.COM SEPTEMBER 202 1
burden-shifting approach. Under the first step, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing an anti-competitive effect. If plaintiff does so, the second step shifts the burden to the defendant to proffer plausible pro-competitive justifications for the restraint. If the defendant is successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff for step BACK TO CONTENTS
