LIV Golf and PGA Tour: Reinvigorated Issue of Antitrust in Sport



Abstract Views
213

Downloads
317

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Jan 15, 2023
Published Feb 10, 2023
10.24018/ejpolitics.2023.2.1.68

Abstract viewed = 213 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

LIV Golf is a professional golf tour launched by the Saudi Public Investment Fund as a competitor to the PGA Tour. Prior to the first event of the LIV in June 2022, PGA had warned that it would sanction golfers participating in conflicting to PGA LIV events. It later suspended the LIV event participants from PGA and associated tournaments. In August 2022, a group of suspended golfers filed an antitrust lawsuit in the US demanding reinstatement in the PGA tour. They were joined by LIV which claimed that such suspension practices would destroy its “ability to maintain a meaningful competitive presence in the markets.” The US Department of Justice also launched an inquiry into the case. The primary issue in the matter seems to be whether PGA’s reaction to LIV consists of legitimate business protection or monopolist practices. This paper attempts to answer this question based on review of the relevant antitrust legal framework in the US. Additionally, the paper will look into possible implications of the likely court decision for golf and professional sports overall.

Keywords: antitrust business protection LIV Golf monopolization PGA Tour professional golf sports laws

References

  1. Adaptive Power Sols., LLC v. Hughes Missile Sys. Co. 141 F.3d 947 (9th), 1998.
     Google Scholar
  2. American Needle v. National Football League 560 U.S. 183 (2010).
     Google Scholar
  3. Areeda, P, and H Hovenkamp (2014). Antitrust law: an analysis of antitrust principles and their application. 4th. Wolters Kluwer.
     Google Scholar
  4. Beall, J (2022). The LIV Golf series: What we know, what we don’t, and the massive ramifications of the Saudi-backed league. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/saudi-golf-league-2022-primer.
     Google Scholar
  5. Boston Professional Hockey Association. v. Cheevers 472 F.2d 127 (1st Cir. 1972).
     Google Scholar
  6. Carrier, M A (2009). The rule of reason: an empirical update for the 21st century. George Mason Law Review, 16 (4), 827–837.
     Google Scholar
  7. Chicago Board of Trade v. United States 246 U.S. 231 (1918).
     Google Scholar
  8. Cogan v. Harford Mem’l Hosp 843 F. Supp. 1013 (D. Md. 1994).
     Google Scholar
  9. Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation 843 F. Supp. 1013 (D. Md. 1994).
     Google Scholar
  10. Defendant Pga Tour, Inc.’s Opposition to TRO Plaintiffs’ Motion for A Temporary Restraining Order CASE NO. 3:22-cv-04486
     Google Scholar
  11. Complaint CASE NO. 3:22-cv-04486, Phil Mickelson et al. (Plaintiffs) v PGA Tour, Inc (Defendant) (2022).
     Google Scholar
  12. Edelman, Marc (2013). A short treatise on amateurism and antitrust law: why the ncaa's no-pay rule violate section 1 of the sherman act. Western Reserve Law Review, 1(64), 61–99.
     Google Scholar
  13. Edelman, Marc (2011). Upon further review: will the NFL’s trademark licensing practices survive full antitrust scrutiny? The remand of american needle v. National football league. Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance, 16(1), 183–203.
     Google Scholar
  14. El-Hodiri, M, and J Quirk (1971). An economic model of a professional sports league. Journal of Political Economy, 79(6), 1302–1319.
     Google Scholar
  15. Farzin, Leah (2015). On the antitrust exemption for professional sports in the united states and Europe. Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, 22(1), 75–108.
     Google Scholar
  16. Federal Baseball Club v National League 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
     Google Scholar
  17. Flood v. Kuhn 407 U.S. 258 (1972).
     Google Scholar
  18. The Sherman’s Antitrust Act,1890.
     Google Scholar
  19. Herrington, R. PGA Tour, European Tour announce formation of a strategic alliance. November 27, 2020. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pga-tour-and-european-tour-announce-strategic-alliance.
     Google Scholar
  20. Humphries, Brad, and H Pyun (2016). Monopsony exploitation in professional sport: evidence from major league baseball position players, 2000–2011: monopsony exploitation in professional sport. Managerial and Decision Economics, 38(5).
     Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, M S (1991). Professional sports leagues, antitrust, and the single-entity theory: a defense of the status quo. Indiana Law Journal, 67(1), 25–58.
     Google Scholar
  22. Maese, Rick (2022). LIV Golf joins its players in lawsuit, intensifying feud with PGA Tour. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/28/liv-golf-antitrust-lawsuit/.
     Google Scholar
  23. National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021).
     Google Scholar
  24. National Society of Prof. Engineers v. United States 435 U.S. 679 (1978).
     Google Scholar
  25. Nova Designs, Inc. v. Scuba Retailers Ass’n 202 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2000).
     Google Scholar
  26. O’Bannon v. NCAA 802 F.3d 1049, 1079 (9th Cir. 2015).
     Google Scholar
  27. Omega Env’t, Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc. 127 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1997).
     Google Scholar
  28. PGA Tour, Inc (2021). Return of organization exempt from income tax, form 990. IRS. http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/pga_2020_990.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  29. Pingue, F (2022). PGA Tour threatens 'disciplinary action' ahead of LIV opener. https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/pga-tour-threatens-disciplinary-action-ahead-liv-opener-2022-06-01/.
     Google Scholar
  30. Ross, S F, and S Szymanski (2006). Antitrust and inefficient joint ventures: sports leagues should look more like mcdonald’s and less like the United Nations. Marquette Sports Law Review, 16(2), 214–259.
     Google Scholar
  31. PNY Techs., Inc. v. SanDisk Corp. Case No.: C-11-04689 YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012).
     Google Scholar
  32. Radovich v. National Football League 352 U.S. 445 (1957).
     Google Scholar
  33. Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc. 792 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
     Google Scholar
  34. Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality Mkts., Inc 142 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1998).
     Google Scholar
  35. Shipnuck, Alan (2022). An inside look at how the money works on LIV Golf. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/an-inside-look-at-how-the-money-works-on-liv-golf-phil-mickelson-brooks-koepka.
     Google Scholar
  36. Stebbins, Jack (2022). Justice Department’s antitrust investigation of PGA Tour includes U.S. Golf Association. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/26/justice-departments-antitrust-investigation-of-pga-tour-includes-usga.html.
     Google Scholar
  37. US Department of Justice (2008). Competition and monopoly: single-firm conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman's Act.
     Google Scholar
  38. van Rompuy, Ben (2022). Antitrust challenges to sports governance: EU and US perspectives. In Handbook on International Sports Law, by J Nafziger and R Gauthier, pp. 423–455. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
     Google Scholar
  39. Washington Professional Basketball Corp. v. National Basketball Association 147 F. Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1956).
     Google Scholar
  40. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co., Inc. 549 U.S. 312 (2007).
     Google Scholar
  41. Willman, David (1995). Pga outclubs ftc in antitrust fight. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-10-22-fi-59876-story.html.
     Google Scholar