Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

OF OF REGENTS BOARD OF OKLAHOMA

UNIVERSITY al., Appellees,

et ATHLETIC COLLEGIATE

NATIONAL al., Appellants. et

ASSOCIATION

No. of Oklahoma.

Supreme Court

Feb.

Crowe, Dunlevy, Thweatt, Swinford, Burdick, Burdick Ben L. Johnson & Muchmore, Ford, Clyde A. Richard C. John Griffin, Jr., City, Oklahoma appellees. J. Fellers, Snider, Blankenship Bailey by & Fellers, Snider, D. Joseph John James Okla- City, for appellants; Swanson, Midg- homa Gangwere, Thurlo ley, by George & Clarke Gangwere, Kitehin, H. John J. City, Kansas Mo., of counsel. Choate,' Moritzky

John Irvan Sand amicus for curiae. Springs, HODGES, Chief Justice. appeal is an from an order

This granting temporary injunc- court a district enjoined which enforcement of tion Collegiate 12-1 of the National Athletic (NCAA) which limits the num- Association a Division I member of the ber coaches may employ. injunctive NCAA asserts that relief adequate remedy an proper1 and that is law exists based on an action the at for to recover coaches breach of contract.2 The ultimate issue is whether the abused granting court trial discretion in injunction. temporary pur This Court the 952(b)(2)3 may to 12 O.S.1971 re § suant verse, modify judgment a vacate or may according granted proper to restrain such removal or 1.Injunctive to 12 be is relief also, may, granted any following disposition. be the circum- 1382 under § O.S.1971 specially by statute. where it is authorized case stances: petition, appears, that it When Principal Board of Public Affairs v. In State demanded, and to the relief plaintiff is entitled (Okl. 1975) Corp., Funding 542 P.2d 503 this thereof, relief, any part consists or such where the state enters into a held that Court restraining continuance of or the commission proper state officials and a valid contract with act, or continuance of commission therefor, some appropriation has been made an valid which, litigation, produce during would in- may for breach of seek redress individual when, during litiga- plaintiff; jury or obligations. contractual state’s doing, tion, appears defendant or that 952(b)(2) the Su- to 12 3. Pursuant O.S.1971 threatens, procuring or to do or is is about or reverse, modify may preme vacate or Court done, suffering act in violation some following any orders the District subject respecting rights plaintiff’s Court: judgment action, tending to render the ineffectual, discharges, injunction may modifies temporary vacates or An order a when, modify provisional a vacate or And dur- refuses such act. or granted to restrain rights action, appear, remedy of a affects substantial it shall ing pendency of an refuses, vacates, party; grants, modifies or affidavit, threatens or is or defendant injunction; modify property an dispose vacate refuses of his to remove or about trial; creditors, grants or vacates a new or to render the or refuses his to defraud intent judgment. ineffectual, injunction a final temporary refuses to vacate judgment where, part it appears on review system. district court educational It also the case and all the nature from the seeks to maintain such intercollegiate ath- plaintiff the court the before properly letics, including facts coaching activities, as an injunction and that it to an was not entitled integral part program, educational An granted.4 action have been should not and to maintain the athlete integral as an equitable cognizance is one of injunction part of the student body. It seeks to main- will all the evidence consider and this Court tain clear line of demarcation between granting injunctive re- appeal.5 on college athletics and professional sports, so appeal unless be reversed lief will not intercollegiate football will be played clearly abused its discretion.6 court the trial by amateur engage student-athletes who whether there was an determine In order to sports for education, physical, mental, discretion, a review of facts abuse and social benefits and to participa- whom is essential. and the law sports tion in such is an avocation rather voluntary association than a business. The NCAA approximately of 800 members. comprised There are definite procedures for adopt- four-year colleges members are Its active ing the rules and regulations of the NCAA. throughout located and universities Basically, the legislation policies of the approximately of which United States NCAA are by initiated an active member or University Oklahoma, of including are an allied conference submitting proposed a members in football. One of the Division I It amendment. be must by circulated legislate, of the NCAA is to purposes certain deadline to all institutions, member bylaws through by resolution of con- after which there is an opportunity for each vention, subject upon any general con- of member to submit proposed amendments. the members the administration cern to An annual convention is held to which all of intercollegiate athletics. A fundamental of the delegates from all of the membership application legislation gov- is the of policy are assembled and vote on proposed erning intercollegiate conduct of athlet- amendment which has been previously cir- institutions to basic programs ic member culated. Amendment of the Constitution issues, admissions, athletic such as financial requires n vote present of those and the aid, eligibility recruiting.7 and The NCAA bylaws require a majority by- vote. The initiation, purposes its among has stim- laws adopted are membership fol- ulation, improvement intercollegiate and lowing procedures established which the student-athletes, programs athletic for and members themselves have adopted and the promotion development and of educa- bylaws are then enforced against and excellence, leadership, physi- tional athletic the member institutions. A joins member fitness, sports cal and participation as a the organization by its own voluntary ac- pursuit. recreational also seeks to en- tion, agrees to be bound the NCAA’s courage adopt members to eligibility its regulations rules and thereby and is obli- comply satisfactory rules to standards gated responsible and to administer its ath- scholarship, sportsmanship, and amateu- letic program in bylaws accordance with the purposes, rism. In of these furtherance adopted by the membership. policies NCAA has certain fundamental recognize competitive that the In January Convention, athlet- the NCAA programs colleges ic which are membership mem- adopted convention a resolu- designed bers of Council, a vital tion which directed the NCAA Oil & Gas Co. Jane Oil & Gas purposes Quaker policy 7.The and fundamental 63 Okl. 164 P. principles intercollegiate for the conduct ath- letics are set forth in the NCAA Const. Arts. 2 (Okl. Vining, Vickers 452 P.2d and 3. 1969). Perry, (Okl. 6. Harrison v. 456 P.2d 1969). subject As- 12-1 and the of this governing litigation, board were

eighteen-person meeting on econo- sociation, by a special adopted majority call a vote of the members the Divisions of all I in Division representation 15,1975. A my. August football on NCAA, representatives as well summary legislative decisions, the- A faculty representa- college presidents, along with certain interpretations, council and coaches tives, directors attend- athletic membership August was mailed to the dis- meeting. representatives These ed legislative changes published were where costs areas and recommended cussed an NCAA memorandum dated Septem- curtailed, to obtain addi- new areas could 15, 1975. ber existing funding the revenues tional provisions were further expansion pro- programs, athletic reviewed and amended in January, 1976. for women including opportunities grams, to delete Efforts Section 1 were defeated. student-athletes, competi- to increase became Bylaw 12-1 effective August special meet- After opportunities. tive provides: 1975, the council recom- April ing 1. Number of “Section Coaches. A special Council that a the NCAA mended institution shall not employ member to sub- the NCAA be called convention utilize the otherwise services of coaches general economy on proposals mit the (a) of the following in excess numbers: sent the All members were membership. coach, Division I Football —One head program notice convention official coaches, eight part-time assistant two as- 1975, containing legislative June sistant coaches.” discussed, including the size to be proposals coaching staff. of the plaintiff the Each of assistant coaches by hired OU on an annual Their was held in Chica- was basis. special convention The 14-15, 1975, was current contracts date variously on either from go, August Illinois Sharp, In- President Paul by January February OU or of and for the attended Morris, Faculty Athletic J. R. Provost provision terim first time the contracts included a Swank, and Director David Representative stating policy OU’s “all assistant Art. 3 of the Wade H. Walker. Athletics of will coaches be retained in their positions so by a n was amended Constitution NCAA carry out their long they responsibilities as three delegates of all divisions of the vote satisfactory manner.” The in coaches had members of each division the to enable verbally provision advised of this in been subject as a coaching staff limits consider bylaw July, 1975. The limitations of 12-1 provides concern. As enacted general who, apply not to assistant coaches be- do as follows: tenure, of academic enforceable con- cause Governing Person- Principle “Section security of employment tracts or formal Bylaws The Limitations. Squad nel and 15, 1975, August in effect on commitments may prescribe limita- Association the jobs continue in their as are entitled to a mem- the number of coaches as to tions However, coaches.8 it has been assistant may employ or otherwise ber institution by the NCAA officers that determined utilize, any sport squad the size of exceptions apply any do not these scouting activities.” game under the official appellee assistant coaches adopted interpretation by NCAA.9 dealing personnel provisions limitations, pleaded have not in this case or bylaw which are now coaches squad l(i). Further, Bylaw legislation. 12-1 in order for an 8. NCAA date limitation, the institu- to exceed institution security interpretation of formal 9. The NCAA obligated through ten- academic tion must be employment in the commitment contained ure, security contracts formal enforceable March, dated 1976 states: Manual NCAA category, employment to all individuals writing shall be made in Such a commitment prescribed including limi- in excess of the those 15, 1975, provide August on or before tations. 1, 1976, August past employment effective any contrary. available. raised issues to In dealing otherwise with an organization has, fact, appeal in which membership abandoned OU is an economic.neces- sity, NCAA and has courts must Council be particularly issues .the alert to the need for validity protecting public the basic elected to attack welfare advancing interests validity justice contest bylaw. OU does not reasonably safeguarding as recruiting insofar it limits individual’s bylaw op- 12-1 portunity to earn a livelihood while to the number of coaches autho- activities impairing proper objec- standards and Apparently rized rule. conten- organization.11 tives The necessity coaches Jimerson and tion is that Shimek court apparent action is posi- where the would have to be terminated transferred of a voluntary association sois domi- lim-, coaching if the football to other duties in its field nant that membership prac- in a observed, and that the bylaw its sense voluntary tical is not but economically requiring. in so invalid It was proper for the trial '^necessary.12 coaches, Two other assistant Steve Bar- court examine the validity of the bylaw. Helms, employ- rett and Jim found similar Appellants argue also the activities ment at other institutions and have been are exempt NCAA from Sherman voluntarily as appellees dismissed in this coverage Act action, because of state Thus, under the at case. evidence the hear- allege if a the result of injunction, ing preliminary only it was governmental valid action opposed as of coaches Jimerson and status Shimek action, private there is no violation of anti that remained to be resolved in this lawsuit. trust laws. NCAA activities are not state appellee OU chosen to hire has Selmon action. In Cantor v. Detroit Edison part-time assistant coach with other duties 428 U.S. S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d department. athletic outside the (1976) the United States Supreme It is asserted held that the Court state action exemption scrutiny judicial is inappropria applicable only was to the state itself or to are normally te.10 Courts reluctant to in officers seeking state immunity for anti- terfere with the internal affairs of volun competitive activities taken pursuant to ex associations, however, tary membership legislative press command. Here the State situations, particular where the considera through of Oklahoma Regents Board of justice policy tions of and are sufficiently attacking bylaw is as being invalid un compelling judicial and scrutiny relief are the state’s der antitrust laws. It is not may ignore power not This Court that may which determine matters of substantial monopolistic private associations over exercise public (and) economic moment interest follow: McCreery Angus their members. Farms v. McCreery Angus Angus Farms American Ass’n., Angus 1008, F.Supp. American 379 1019 Ass’n., id.; Vinci, 389, Van Daele v. 51 Ill.2d (1974) (7th 1974) 1404 Cir. aff’d 506 F.2d cited 728, (1972); Grempler 282 N.E.2d 731 v. Multi “Developments in the Law—Judicial Control of ple Listing County, Bureau of Harford 258 Md. Associations,” 983, 76 994 Private Harv.L.Rev. 419, 1, (1970); 266 A.2d 5 Pinsker v. Pacific (1963) premise for the that: Society Orthodontists, 160, Coast 1 Cal.3d 81 groups an “Since leaders which have Cal.Rptr. 623, (1969); 460 Higgins P.2d 495 relatively stranglehold free are economic Society Pathologists, American Clinical 51 withdrawal, by membership control it from 191, (1968); 238 A.2d 669 Courtesy N.J. important con- would seem trols, that other more Chevrolet, Walking Inc. v. Tennessee Horse judicial such as intervention be availa- Ass’n., (9th 1965), 344 F.2d 860 Cir. 393 F.2d 75 then, may group, ble . 1968) (9th Cir. cert. 393 den. U.S. 89 S.Ct. solely appeal goals own or allowed to to its (1968); 21 274 L.Ed.2d Deesen v. Profes justification, may justify prac- but have to American, sional Golfer’s Association 358 light of tices in the broader social interests.” (9th 1966); Maricopa F.2d 165 Cir. Blende v. County 11. Falcone v. Middlesex Medical Socie- County Society, 96 Medical Ariz. 393 P.2d ty, 34 N.J. A.2d 89 170 A.L.R.2d (1964); Osteopathic Hospital In re Associa (1961). Delaware, tion Del.Ch. 191 A.2d 333 jurisdictions uphold 12. Cases from other judicial private intervention into associations may NCAA members antitrust liabili- not participate from in a seeking exemption an Cantor, bowl unless it has Under NCAA sanction. It own conduct. is an for its ty necessity the state economic that to assert member be- not entitled schools is NCAA long to the NCAA regardless of the fact exemption. action is a that it voluntary organization, and bylaw that the court determined The trial comparable is not a there organization OU viola- per in a se trade to restrain operated may join to obtain analogous benefits. l.13 agree We § of 79 O.S.1971 tion monopoly is virtual We must NCAA reveal determine whether the facts commerce;14 bylaw is an in interstate unreasonable restraint engaged under services the antitrust laws. For personal purposes performance coaching constitute Antitrust Act and Sherman college football Oklahoma Statute, phrase a restraint meaning may of trade be unrea trade within either because as used in anti-trust sonable a restraint of trade otherwise restraint competition accompanied in is Intercollegiate reasonable specific in laws.15 in accomplish NCAA and tent to forbidden restraint or sponsored events in- it member institutions because falls within a class arranged by of restraints games illegal per degree from differ- that are se.16 We great agree teams do not to a volves negotiated finding televi- with the of the trial The NCAA court that the states. ent per in is a se with ABC which resulted violation the antitrust contracts sion in appearing trade, laws. Contracts institutions of 109 different if not total public years plan contrary policy, to for two violate neither the telecasts state was shared 138 federal nor the Revenue antitrust laws.17 Per In se violations of during two-year period. antitrust are laws those institutions agreements practices re- participating members which because of the NCAA’s rights, pernicious their effect on $16,000,000 competition in television ceived assessment, any redeeming lack of received a 6% virtue conclu NCAA which the and, sively presumed received from be unreasonable revenue was in addition therefore, attending illegal in- without spectators games inquiry elaborate 31,687,847 precise they country. as to the harm cause or the colleges across the volving 634 However, use.18 excuse their games all bowl area sanctions equivalent statutory profession acknowledge has a 13. The Oklahoma Act, 1, pro- aspect. disparagement 79 O.S.1971 Antitrust Sherman Neither is it a business vides: acknowledge that athletics to there amateur contract, act, agreement, aspect Every provision or combina- a commercial trust, otherwise, or con- presentation form of coaching tion in the of athletic services spiracy of trade or commerce with- buying viewing and television contests ticket hereby against to be declared state this audiences. illegal. public policy and Act, Likewise, Antitrust 15 U.S.C. the Sherman National of 15. See United States v. Association part: pertinent provides in 1§ Boards, 489, 485, U.S. 70 Estate 339 S.Ct. Real contract, in “Every the form of combination 711, (1950); 1007 United States v. 94 L.Ed. otherwise, conspiracy, or in restraint trust or Association, U.S.App. 72 Medical American States, among the several trade or commerce 703, 12, (1940) 110 708 cert. F.2d den. 310 D.C. nations, illegal. . . ." foreign is to be declared or with 1096, 644, (1940). 84 L.Ed. 1411 60 S.Ct. U.S. properly valua- determined that The trial court Times-Picayune Publishing v. Co. United interpretation of 79 O.S.1971 in ble assistance 594, 612, 872, States, 883, 73 97 345 U.S. S.Ct. gained may in which from the manner 1 (1953). 1277 L.Ed. interpreted the Sherman have various courts Act. Antitrust 410, Belcher, 184 87 17. Thomas v. Okl. P.2d Supreme Gold Court United States 14. The 1084, (1939). 1085 773, Bar, Virginia 95 421 U.S. State farb v. 2004, 2013, (1975) 572 held 44 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. States, 372 U.S. 18. White Motor Co. v. United practice disparagement the is no 701, 696, 262, 253, 738 83 S.Ct. 9 L.Ed.2d acknowledge profession the to law as a commerce, (1963). provision of its services 506 limited,19 carefully members, se violations is service per to its but its activities also re- strong we have determined the

and because involve elements of public interest. per se violation we must one, is not restraints like present straint In the to which interpret to its applies, to the rule of reason rule of reason turn it must be deter- among All validity invalidity. particular contracts whether the or is mined action rea- nor prohibited sonably competitors are calculated to potential prejudice public might insig- some all interest the Act was designed protect. even contracts to degree or attenuated sense restrain This does not specific public inju- nificant mean that Rather, respect proved to most must ry private before competition. person contracts, recover, is or there but business combinations can before it can be said that determining whether violation conduct is forbidden applied, as unreasonably exists, a “rule restraining Act of rea- trade the Sherman or commerce within the analysis. analysis meaning This includes facts son” Sherman Antitrust Act it business and which peculiar appear must that it tends is the( or reasonably applied, re- prejudice the nature public restraint calculated interest. effects, history Except and its and the where a straint document is on its face in law, and the reasons for its of the antitrust violation it is necessary only is well settled that un- resort to outside adoption.20 evidence to determine restraints of unreasonable interstate whether the restraint imposed due or is unreason- possible and not all re- trade or commerce able. All circumstances should be taken consideration, by the An- prohibited straints are Sherman into including the relation- ship parties Act21 and the statutes titrust State and their relation with legality test of subject with, true matter dealt of Oklahoma.22 its relation to imposed general is such as public, whether the peculiar to facts thereby business, merely promotes regulates trade or profession, condition may whether it is before competition and after the imposed, restraint was competition.23 destroy suppress purpose sought attained, The fun- to be and the re- damental test reasonableness of nature restraint and its actual or public.24 effect probable straint is its effect.25 recognized It must be The NCAA membership of Division development is dedicated to the great I schools after a amount of delibera sports performs a valuable attempt amateur tion in an costs, reduce Equipment, 19. Walker Process Inc. v. Topco Associates, Inc., Food Ma- 25.United States v. note U.S, chinery Corp., 178, 172, & Chemical 382 20, supra; States, White Motor Co. United 347, 351, (1965). 15 L.Ed.2d 247 86 S.Ct. 18, supra; City Board of Trade of Chi note States, cago 22, supra; v. United note Interna Associates, Inc., Topco 20. United States 405 York, Boxing tional Club of New Inc. v. United 1133, 608, 1126, 596, 31 92 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. States, 242, 245, U.S. 79 358 S.Ct. 3 L.Ed.2d (1972). 515 (1959); United States v. E. I. DuPont De 270 Co., 377, 994, Nemours & 351 U.S. 76 S.Ct. 100 Associates, id.; Topco 21. United States v. Unit (1956); United States v. Columbia L.Ed. 1264 Co., 495, ed States v. Columbia Steel 334 U.S. 495, 1107, Steel 334 U.S. 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1121, 1533, 1107, reh. den. 334 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1533, reh. den. 334 U.S. 68 S.Ct. 92 U.S. 68 S.Ct. L.Ed. (1948); Appalachian Coals v. United L.Ed. 1781 States, U.S. S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. 825 Authority, Petition of Dam Grand River Laboratories, (1933); Rotary Cherokee Inc. v. (Okla.1958). P.2d Services, Drilling (5th 383 F.2d 104 Cir. 1967) 904, 816, den. cert. U.S. 390 88 S.Ct. 19 City Chicago 23. Board of Trade of of v. United (1968); Petition of Grand River L.Ed.2d 870 States, 246 38 U.S. S.Ct. 62 Authority, Dam (Okl.1958). 320 P.2d 710 (1918). L.Ed. 683 Lynch Magnavox 94 F.2d (9th 1938). Cir. colleges concerning participation insti- opportunities intercollegiate in increase football, includ- nature of programs all their athletic the the in NCAA26and the tutions purpose for women athletes voted restraint and the ing sought to be opportunities bylaw. by adoption The avowed intent of achieved the adopt by to measured rule membership adopting in the was to the rule of reason the bylaw the is not an recruiting opportunity in equalize the unreasonable on Rather, trade. everyone begin equal on to make the evidence reflects that attempt pur- the avowed curtailing of by potentially monopolis- pose bylaw foster, the is to footing promote and powerful the practices by competition more schools tic maintain between Division I the programs athletic into rather than to impede, and to reorient schools suppress, or destroy traditional role as competition. amateur their more a of the part education- sports operating argued bylaw It is the violates made No effort is OU to process. al process rights due of the coaches. The reasonability attempt- lack of establish exemption of academic tenure or of an en competitive the economicand ing address to contract or forceable formal security of em facing Division I institutions problems argued was not ployment as an proipoted Rather, OU bylaw of 12-1. chal- means appeal. employment The of the coaches authority of the NCAA to at- lenges the tied to employment was continued of the particular in this manner. tempt solutions head coaches. The first written contracts reasonable for eminently' Since pertaining to tenure were entered into on rising with the concern itself NCAA to February, 1976, after adoption athletics, particularly amateur costs of bylaw and were for one-year periods. Had football, increasing the ever the field the coaches enjoyed tenure, academic among its I imbalance Division competitive formal written had commitment existed be cannot be membership, unlaw- 15, 1975, August fore there would by the rule of have ful when measured reason no for this appeal. been reason The to coaches adopted mechanism redress unless the not do attack the action University fails to constitute a reasonable problem Oklahoma, their employer, offers no evidence tending selecting solution. OU for termination or reassignment, them rath bylaw would not 12-1 affect establish er, brought only suit against departments to athletic reduction cost validity test bylaw provision or that there is no com- Division I schools adopted by from the members of a placing voluntary to be derived petitive benefit equal all footing institutions on an association affects Division I all member coaching of their alike and respect size schools likewise all coaches re- Division contrary, On the evidence I schools. facts staffs. reveal the opinion bylaw only it is the considered of a was enacted thoughtful flects that after administrators, majority faculty, adequate rep deliberation and notice with institution, athletic directors of I of each coaches and Division resentatives member in OU, cluding that a colleges and universities limit at the meeting in attendance way is the best to achieve coaching adopted. staffs where it was discussed and It operates equally We do not choose to substitute as a goals. both restriction on the membership, for theirs. We find and is not judgment our after an personally directed involving appellee circumstances coaches. examination is ra the bylaw, relationship tionally objective to its adoption related announced public interest, arbitrary parties, facts is neither invidiously nor dis- unaccompanied monopolization. unlawful in- Mere size fense United States Grif- fith, 100, 107, does constitute violation tent or conduct 334 U.S. S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. monop- laws. is the existence antitrust (1948); Deesen v. Professional Golfers’ coupled oly power with the intent use it for America, Cir., Ass’n. 358 F.2d purposes anticompetitive or with inevitable anticompetitive that establishes effects the of- 508 LAVENDER, J., adoption its violate due

criminatory, nor did V. C. DAVISON, WILLIAMS, IRWIN process. DOOLIN, JJ., concur. bylaw argued that the It is also BERRY, SIMMS, JJ., BARNES and dis- which restrains the a contract constitutes sent. exercising profes their lawful coaches from of 15 O.S.1971 217.27 We sion violation § BARNES, Justice, dissenting. agree. prevent The does not do not I respectfully dissent to the result engaging from in their trade as the coaches by the reached Majority Opinion. limits the number of merely coach. It I agree that this is per not a se violation may I employ Division schools coaches that laws, but, of the antitrust on applying require It does not as assistant coaches. adopted of reason by rule the Majority coaches. particular OU terminate these Opinion determine if there is a violation any particular at bylaw is directed The laws, of the antitrust I am forced to con applies equally all members person. Bylaw clude that a pure 12-1 is simple validity Division I in football. commercial restraint of trade. There are enforceability of contracts in restraint of redeeming no features to this rule. only Its by determined trade are considerations of seems to purpose be to discourage competi Restraint of public policy. trade to be ille tion and excellence in Division I for eco public gal must inimical interest.28 nomic reasons. Even the economic reasons agreement which is An reasonable and pointless. are See page 16 Appellants’ parties right have a proper which Reply Brief where it argued is that “there contrary to public policy make is not void is no basis concluding by limiting though contractual duties even toward the number of coaches who may be em may parties incidentally involved.29 third ployed that the salaries to be paid are invalidating contracts Statutes thereby reduced and that profits de by its of trade must be determined reasona by rived therefrom the member institution the particular view of circums bleness in increased”, are because there is no restric agreement illegal tances.30 An paid tion on salaries to be coaches and more void, agreement an of trade is but in rea money paid could be for coaches under the restraint of trade is valid.31 We sonable do paid rate new than was when there was no bylaw provision not find is con limitation on the number coaches. trary public policy of the State of Appellants’ Briefs are moot toas unreasonably or that it Oklahoma restrains (Divisions reason that the smaller schools II of 15 trade in violation O.S.1971 § III) expressly excluded from the enumerated, For the reasons we find the might rule. speculate One that after con- trial court abused its discretion in granting sidering the other fuzzy reasoning incorpo- injunction. temporary Bylaw rated in 12-1 that it was felt REVERSED. framers that the smaller (Divisions schools provides: Co., 217 27.15 O.S.1971 28. Richardson v. Paxten 203 Va. 127 (1962). Hennessey S.E.2d See also v. anyone Every contract restrained (N.D.Ala.1976). exercising profession, from lawful trade or kind, any provid- otherwise than as business Boren, Refíning sections, 29. Gulf Co. 50 S.W.2d two ed the next to that extent (Tex.Civ.App.1932). void. Tatum v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Corp. America, Seymour, (Okla.1970). Paint General P.2d 338 The stat- Cal. App. precludes only 12 P.2d 990 ute those contracts which re- employee any any strain the from in manner or exercising profes- extent whatsoever 31. Griffin v. Oklahoma lawful Natural Gas sion, any (10th 1930). trade or business kind F.2d Cir. whatsoever. larger by promotes competition better afford the III) and could or whether it is II may suppress as or destroy staffs. competi tion”, citing United Topco States Associ that their Appellants contend Although ates, Inc., 596, 405 U.S. 1126, 92 S.Ct. initiation, stimulation purpose basic 1133, 31 515 (1972), L.Ed.2d and United intercollegiate athletic improvement and v. Columbia States Steel 334 U.S. pro- student athletes and for programs 68 S.Ct. L.Ed. reh. den. development of educational motion U.S. 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. 1781 excellence, fit- physical athletic leadership, (1948). Here the imposed by By as a recrea- ness, participation sports 12-1 has the effect law of destroying com 12-1, as it Bylaw resulting pursuit, tional rather than petition promoting it. This is a meeting to special determine from a did trade, flagrant restraint which has noth collectively the costs of the to reduce ways improvement do ing to with of intercol would indicate programs, athletic members’ legiate programs. athletic It is violative how concern of the NCAA is the true laws of the antitrust our state and our profit at a programs run athletic to to permit We should not it to nation. stand. stated, previously As institutions. member accomplish pur- effectively could not respectfully dissent. I put economy unless it also of enforced pose am to I authorized state Justices of salaries that the amount ceiling on my concur in BERRY SIMMS dissent- ap- This to coaches. would paid be could ing views. next for this step to be the pear me Bylaw permit if we 12-1 organization

stand. unwarranted, an provides for

Bylaw 12-1 management of the fiscal invasion

arbitrary is no schools. There participating to refuse

way dissenting school the rule their whole

comply with because upon compe- is dependent program athletic Oklahoma, Appellant, The STATE of Part of with other member schools. tition itself provides 12-1 for sanctions Bylaw a school that doesn’t

against comply. BEVERAGE LICENSE NO. BEV-75-45 GENE d/b/a OF WM. MORRIS Bylaw 12-1 dictates coaches Superette, Appellee. terminated, Heavener not because must question needed, not they because the Uni- No. 48903. pay cannot versity Oklahoma afford Supreme Court of Oklahoma. salaries, they not because have violat- their adopted by rules conduct any of the ed March Conference, NCAA, Big Eight Oklahoma, merely University of but majority of Division I schools because they afford cannot

have determined part-time than nine full-time two

more coaches, therefore for them to

assistant more with the successful competitive their that all of the schools in

programs having be prohibited should from

division they than can afford.

more coaches Opinion Majority sets out true “whether the im- legality,

test merely regulates there-

posed is such

Case Details

Case Name: Bd. of Regents, Etc. v. Natl. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Feb 1, 1977

Citation: 561 P.2d 499

Docket Number: 50149

Court Abbreviation: Okla.