541 F.Supp.3d 1171
D. Or.2021Background
- Plaintiff is a 15-year-old female soccer player who seeks a TRO to prevent the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) from enforcing its rule requiring players be at least 18, so she can compete for a roster spot; she does not seek an order forcing hiring.
- Plaintiff alleges the NWSL and its ten member teams agreed to exclude players under 18, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act by restraining competition in the market for professional women’s soccer players.
- The NWSL is the only top-level professional women’s soccer league in the U.S., giving it market power in the relevant labor market.
- After a hearing, the district court found Plaintiff met her initial rule-of-reason burden: (1) concerted action among teams and the league, (2) an unreasonable restraint on competition, and (3) an effect on interstate commerce.
- The court rejected the NWSL’s non-statutory labor‑exemption argument and found Defendants failed to show any valid procompetitive justification; it also found Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favored relief.
- The court granted a 14-day TRO enjoining enforcement of the Age Rule against Plaintiff (unless the rule is in a binding CBA applicable to her) and ordered briefing toward a preliminary injunction hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff can show concerted action under §1 (single-entity defense) | NWSL teams are separate competitors who agreed via league rules/manual to enforce the Age Rule | NWSL is a single entity that unilaterally set the Age Rule | Court: Teams and league are not a single entity for §1; Plaintiff showed sufficient evidence of an agreement among separate entities to enforce the Age Rule |
| Whether the Age Rule unreasonably restrains trade under the rule of reason | Age Rule excludes qualified players, reducing output/competition in the women’s pro soccer labor market; NWSL has market power as the only U.S. league | Age Rule serves procompetitive aims (player development, minor‑safety, cost, common sports practice) | Court: Plaintiff met initial burden (concerted action, market power, harm); Defendant failed to show procompetitive benefits that enhance competition |
| Whether the non‑statutory labor exemption bars antitrust challenge | N/A (Plaintiff) — seeks relief from a rule not in any CBA | Recognition of players’ union and voluntary agreement invokes labor exemption and would interfere with bargaining | Court: Exemption does not apply because the Age Rule was adopted outside and prior to any CBA; injunctive relief would not prevent future collective bargaining or inclusion of an age rule in a CBA |
| Whether TRO factors are satisfied (irreparable harm, balance, public interest) | Exclusion from league play during formative years causes irreparable, irrecoverable harm to career development; public interest favors competition and gender equity | Allowing a minor could impose logistical and compliance costs (Safe Sport Act, facilities, contracts) | Court: Irreparable harm shown; equitable harms to NWSL speculative; public interest supports granting TRO; TRO granted for 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO factors mirror preliminary injunction factors)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions and TROs)
- Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat’l Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010) (rule of reason and single‑entity inquiry for sports leagues)
- Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018) (three‑step rule‑of‑reason burden‑shifting framework)
- Jack Russell Terrier Network of N. Cal. v. Am. Kennel Club, Inc., 407 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements plaintiff must plead under §1)
- Denver Rockets v. All‑Pro Mgmt., Inc., 325 F. Supp. 1049 (C.D. Cal. 1971) (challenging league age/entry rules; group boycott harms)
- Haywood v. Nat’l Basketball Ass’n, 401 U.S. 1204 (1971) (emergency reinstatement of injunction against NBA restriction)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (sports‑league restraints and procompetitive analysis)
- O’Bannon v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) (labor market can be a relevant market in sports antitrust)
- Clarett v. Nat’l Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004) (non‑statutory labor exemption and CBA immunity in sports)